• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Twelve Angry Men.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Twelve Angry Men The legal system in the United States of America grants one the right to a bench trial, where a judge determines the verdict, or a jury trial where, in most cases, where a panel of twelve United States citizens are sworn in to hear a case and then deliberate, after receiving instruction by the judge, to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant. In the movie, Twelve Angry Men, the selected group of jurors was to decide the verdict of a murder case where a young man was accused of killing his father. Although we did not get to see the trial, we did get to see the jury receive instructions from the judge in regards to the law and how there needed to be a unanimous verdict to convict the accused. After the jurors received their instructions from the judge, the jury was sent off to deliberate. This was when the true colors of the jury deliberation process were revealed. When the twelve jurors entered the room to deliberate, eleven out of the twelve began with a verdict of guilty without even discussing any of the evidence. ...read more.

Middle

If this was to be a part of the legal system, it is to be known to all of the jurors what the foreman's duties would entail. This could be told to the jury when the judge gives the instruction to the jury before they are sent off to deliberate. Although the jury or foreman has no legal experience, it would just be another instruction that would have to be followed. The foreman could act as if he/she were a judge to make sure that if another juror were to express some sort of bias or personal belief that it would not be used to help re-cap the case. This, of course, raises the question that Mark Nunez asked, "Is it possible for human beings to check their lived experience at the door?" (1). As one may know, all lawyers and judges are forbidden to represent or monitor a case based on their personal experience. Can we say this does not happen, no; but they practice the law and that is what is represented in court. A jury's job, as members of the court, is to reach a guilty or not guilty verdict based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, not based on personal reflection. ...read more.

Conclusion

With such uncertainty or suspicion, the jury could not possibly make a definite ruling that the young man killed his father because there was reasonable doubt. That is why, in a jury deliberation, one's gut instinct should not be a factor in reaching a verdict. Like the one particular juror who voted in favor of convicting the defendant from the start, he was certain that the boy did it, but when he was "challenged he could not admit that he did not know why he thought the accused was guilty. This shows how a man's character is used as a vehicle to expose a serious flaw in the system" (Nunez 1). So, is it safe to say that the legal system is flawless, of course not, but can justice still be attained? Yes. By having a jury deliberation it does allow outsiders to be selected to serve as a jury and evaluate a case based on the facts, but sometimes it takes that one person to assess all aspects of the case and make sure the accused can be convicted beyond reasonable doubt. One can only wish that every juror would do the same, but sometimes "the truth has to be brought to the eyes of the blind" (2). ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Machinery of Justice section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Machinery of Justice essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    ‘Trial by jury is outdated, expensive and ineffective in ensuring justice’ Analyse arguments for ...

    4 star(s)

    Auld, however, felt there was no compelling reason to do this, and in his report, clearly stipulated that there was no need to make legal provision for such a thing (Auld, 2001:para8).

  2. A critical evaluation of labelling theory.

    However, critics go on to argue that by the time offenders reach the attention of the criminal justice system they are often already immersed in criminality. (Mankoff 1971 in Lilly 2002:114) It is a fact in society that many individuals go through life carrying out all sorts of crimes from

  1. Describe trial by jury within the English legal system. How effective is trial by ...

    The jury then returned a verdict of guilty, but the defendant conviction was quashed on appeal because of the judge's interference. The judge must also accept the jury verdict, even if he/she does not agree with it. Juries sometimes make extraordinary decisions e.g.

  2. The winslow boy

    Arthur does not give in he keeps fighting to clear Ronnie's name. The court case has an impact upon the whole family especially Arthur who is now is really upset about the whole thing. The public attitude toward the case is that it is worthless, there are more important issues

  1. ' Is the jury the "...lamp that shows freedom lives"?

    It creates a sense of openness and reinforces public involvement in the justice system, which is a sign of a healthy democratic society. This is clearly important with regards public confidence and independence. Who better to judge the essential issues of criminal trials than those with similar backgrounds to the

  2. The Canadian Justice system towards aboriginal offenders

    There are no statutory requirements that the court must follow".23 The case law has only incrementally begun to formulate criteria for the implementation of sentencing circles. Chief Justice Bayda, in the case of R. v. Morin, states that the two mandatory criteria relating to sentencing circles are the willingness of

  1. Law and Morals

    legality of it could be viewed as merely reflecting attitudes at the time - that a woman should be allowed to exercise rights over her body. This is an example of the law upholding the moral values of a group in society; however those against it could argue that the law on abortion goes against moral beliefs.

  2. Expert Testimony and Its Value In the Justice System

    Ultimately the Law Commission decided that the best option would be to implement an ?admissibility rule requiring the trial judge to assess the evidentiary reliability of the tendered evidence?.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work