• 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)

    The Home Office is currently trying to eradicate the right of election of trial by jury for TEW cases, making it into a decision solely for Magistrates. This would also see the reclassification of offences to summary offences as well.

  2. A critical evaluation of labelling theory.

    have proven more than once that the seriousness of the crime is the main factor that influences subsequent labelling, and has little to do with the social background of the offender. The second major argument in labelling theory is that the criminal justice system actually propels offenders towards a career of crime.

  1. The winslow boy

    Now I don't want your to say a word until you've heard what I've got to say.

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

    to bring in a guilty verdict against Quakers who were charged with unlawful assembly they pleaded not guilty, the judge ordered to not accept the not guilty claim instead they were all fined and sent to prison they then appealed to the court of appeal "Court Of Common Pleas" they

  1. Law and Morals

    given to her claiming she wanted her baby to be born naturally. This subsequently led to 'an infringement of the mother's autonomy' (The Times, May 1998), which anti-abortion groups would claim was the moral thing to do. The law's intervention in this case may have been it upholding moral values of society.

  2. ' 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

  1. English legal system

    only disagreement between the parties was a matter of the judge's discretion, which could not be interfered with by an appeal court unless the correct procedure had not been followed when he came to making his decision. It had already been accepted by both parties that the appellant's case was

  2. Expert Testimony and Its Value In the Justice System

    The fact that this evidence is provided by an expert makes it even harder for the jury as they feel that they have no right to question the decision of someone who is highly qualified in their field of work.

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