The following report will go into detail about the movie 12 angry men and how the current Jury system operates. It will list all the key turning points, and incorporate how the movie can be portrayed into the real life struggles of the current jury system. Not only will this report be based on the movie 12 angry men but will also go into detail how whether or not the current jury system within Queensland is beneficial to the community. It discusses why the unanimous verdict must stay for it to be beneficial, and other possible alternatives to the current system.
Overview of the movie 12 Angry Men
The Movie 12 Angry Men was originally released in 1957, and later released in 1997. Both the movies have similar script lines, but have different actors. Along these lines the characters in the 1997 movie that was directed by William Friedkin, goes deeper into the jury system, and how it operates. Although both have very similar dialogs, the later the casting members are from different racial backgrounds. The following Report will go into detail about the 1997 version of 12 Angry Men
The Plot is based around twelve jury members who have to decide the fate of an 18-year-old boy, accused of murdering his father. The movie does not show the trial itself, but rather the way the jury system operators and the issues that surround jury members, and how the evidence can be misleading. Once the Judge has given her final say, "It now becomes your duty to separate fact from fiction
you find the defendant guilty, the bench will not entertain mercy, bare in mind he could face the death sentence" As the jury members entered that jury room to decide the fate of the accused, many of the jury members talk about other subjects rather than the trail itself. One talks about the baseball, others talk about their careers. As the Jury were, delivering their verdict, all but one returned a guilty response. It is apparent that most of the jury members have a personal prejudice that hinders their verdict bearing. When Juror 8 is questioned on his verdict that being not guilty his response was "I don't know but I need to hear more before sending a boy of to die" There were eight key turning points in where the jurors changed their verdict to not guilty; this was based on the creditability of the evidence. There are four main pieces of evidence that are discussed and disputed in the jury room. These 4 pieces of evidence each bring weight to a juror's repose and verdict. However, throughout the movie one juror will not entertain that the accused may not have committed the murder. There are 4 pieces of evidence brings together the movie, and in the jury room this evidence is discussed and disputed. The four items are as follows.
2.2 The Evidence
2.2.1 The Knife:
The Knife plays a key part in several key turning points, and will be used for both for and against the defendant throughout the jury's deliberations. However the 1st time that the evidence around the knife is put forward for the case of guilty. It's Creditability as a key piece of evidence is lowered. The key points around the knife were that 1.
The knife was allegedly one of a kind. This was said by the Service attendant who sold the knife to the boy. 2.
The Accused Showed the 3 of his friends the knife after he brought it at around 8.45 pm 3.
The Accused Lost the knife sometime between 11.30 pm and when arrested. The knife allegedly fell through a hole in the accused pants pocket. 2.2.2
Two Witnesses to the murder:
1st Witness was a woman who claims to have seen the accused stab his father. This was seen at around 12.10 am threw the open window of a passing crate train, 60 feet away. 188.8.131.52
2nd Witness was an Elderly man, who lived beneath the accused apartment. 1. Claims to have heard the accused yell out "I'm going to kill you" then hearing a thump on the floor, this was around 12.10 2. Claims to have seen the have seen the accused run...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document