In the movie, "12 Angry Men," there was constant pressure to follow the crowd. Although some men were able to decide for themselves if the man was guilty, others were pressured into deciding based on the other intimidating jurors in the room. I think that when in a jury room all, the jurors should be made to say why they think the defendant is guilty or not, and not withhold anything that could be of use to deciding the verdict. Nevertheless, the jurors shout not have the right to say whatever they want, which may be hurtful to other jurors.
Many of the jurors in the movie seemed to be unsure of whether they really thought the defendant was guilty or not. However, once the jurors began explaining the evidence, it helped clarify what really might have happened. If the jurors had not talked out each incident and evidence involved in the murder case, the defendant would have been found guilty. Juror three, the angry one, not only had some unknown anger towards this defendant, but he manipulated others to change their vote based on his decision. Juror three should have withheld his temper, and calmly explained his reasoning’s behind his decision. However, he not only inflicted embarrassment onto many of the jurors, but some of the jurors felt insecure and weak to his authority, which is no higher than any of the other jurors.
The older juror no longer felt scared or compelled from juror 3, or any of the other jurors, and he brought up some thoughts he had about the eye witness who claimed she had seen the defendant murder his father. Since the old man had enough courage to stand up against all the other intimidating jurors, his thoughts about the evidence lead the rest of the jurors to change their votes. If jurors always withheld their thoughts and doubts about their case, many innocent people may receive a wrongful punishment.
Maybe there could be some type of establishment before the jury comes to session, and someone could not only explain the rules of being on jury, but tell them that there needs to be some type of order and manner in which the jury session is held. In addition, the jurors should know that they are not allowed to become enraged in any way that might harm a juror and compel him/her to change their vote. Furthermore, each jury must give a reasonable explanation for their decision.
Being on jury duty is never an easy task. All of the cases held within a jury are life-changing circumstances for the defendant. One of the jurors changed his vote primarily because others were, and he just wanted to leave to go to his baseball game. Jurors should not only make their decision based on what they truly believe is the truth, but the jurors should feel open to discussion about the case, and not afraid what other jurors will respond to his/her ideas, since their verdict is going to greatly effect the life of the defendant on trial.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Hey Orly!
I really liked your post on how juries work, and I do agree that like what Teddie had said, it can be intimidating to be the only one who has a certain view on the case.
hi orly!
I agree that it could be intimidating standing up before the other eleven men and declaring you disagree. I also think that your idea of "rules" before hand is a good idea. They seemed good!
Orly you have really touched on a very interesting and frightneing point... peer pressure/bullying does not only affect children/teens but, adults too. Luckily for the young man on trial, juror number 3's outburst and intimidation tactics did not immorally sway the jury and ultimatley the verdict. Well done!!!!! :)
It is so important in this world to have law and order, and it should not be any different in a jury room. I agree with what you say, how important it is for jurors to feel comfortable and open to share their honest feelings on the case.
Hi Orly! I defenetly agree with you that there is alot of pressure on the jurors, and it has a big impact on the desicions they make, because all the pressure sometimes they don't say what they really think, and its just leads to a punishment/ death of an iniccent defendant.
Hey Orly!
I completely agree with everything you said, and you made some really good points! I like when you talked about the fact that once the jurrors started talking it out rather than yelling at each other, they were able to all agree that he was innocent. If they had continued to yell and say things to embarass each other, they would have probably said that he was guilty because they could not have made points that were s good or/and as valid.
Post a Comment