12 Angry Men Jury System

The jury system both the bulk or unanimous system is a component of our Justice system. Recently, when present at a trial of young Puerto Rican youth accused of murder, it appeared that the unanimous jury was stronger and favourable. This was concluded because the longer timeframe which the unanimous system on this case allowed the opinion of all jurors’ in the choice making course of which resulted in an affordable doubt. At the same time, it allowed the jurors’ prejudice to affect their judgement and bought a fair chance to totally re- look at the evidence.

Don’t waste time Get a verified expert to help you with Essay

The intensive timeframe of the unanimous jury system, allowed the proof introduced within the courtroom to be completely examined, especially because the defence attorney appeared less than proactive. To begin, the testimony of the knife offered in courtroom was disproved within the jury room as an similar knife was revealed by Juror Eight. Thus it grew to become obvious it might have been “coincidence for an additional person to have stabbed the father with the identical sort of knife” (p.

17) that resulted in a change in Juror Nines’ vote.

Similarly, Juror Eight raised one other statement regarding the time it took the old male witness to succeed in his door and see the boy, posing a doubt in the jurors’ minds, as “it’s an extended walk…. for an old man who had a stroke” (p. 34) which modified the votes of Juror Two and Six. Correspondingly, most jurors instantly began to rethink their votes because the evidence was slowly examined in depth.

Allowing the proof to digest and the vote depend to vary from “11 to 1- guilty” (p. 7) to succeed in a verdict of ‘not guilty’.

The timeframe allowed the evidence to be fully mentioned and understood, which fluctuated the votes from ‘guilty’ to ‘not guilty’ because of affordable doubt. The unanimous jury system additionally, allowed the longer time frame to reveal the jurors’ prejudices to have an effect on their judgement and damage emotions. Initially, the attitudes of the twelve men have been displayed in the direction of the Puerto Rican boy in the opening verdict. However, they were cheap and changed when the jurors’ demonstrated racism, boredom, bias and a careless method. This became evident when Juror Seven made up his choice stating “the boy is responsible, pal.

So let’s go home before we get sore throats” (p. 22) without even discussing the explanations behind his decision. In the identical vein, an act of racism was portrayed against the Puerto Ricans to different migrating residents, elevating their defective manners. Juror Tens racist behaviour was displayed when the votes had been “nine to a few in favour of not guilty” (p. 51) by describing the Puerto Ricans as liars and individuals who “don’t want any massive excuse to kill someone” (p. 51). Moreover, the personal belief of the juror’s was noticed as some declarations made had been offending and others have been simple private beliefs which were bought into the case.

Juror Three displayed an aggressive behaviour when he was confronted by Juror Eight who described him to be “a sadist” (p. 37), in consequence Juror Three threatened to “kill him” (p. 37). The prejudices and private beliefs have been being touched; which allowed the true colors of the juror’s to be exhibited within the jury room. A unanimous jury permits everyone to have a say and express their opinion on the trial so all decisions are understood by everybody, since the jury is ready to take much more time to deliberate and put ahead a reasonable doubt.

In the beginning, when the votes were eleven to 1 in favour of ‘guilty’, the jurors begin to intimidate Juror Eight who’s in favour of ‘not guilty’. However, as Juror Eight was allowed to express his opinion because the unanimous jury ensures this, the puzzle began to disintegrate. Juror Eight was the primary to vote ‘not guilty’ as he believed that they couldn’t decide “about somebody’s life here…in five minutes. [supposing in the occasion that they were] wrong? ” (p. 7). Likewise, because of the dialogue an inexpensive doubt was formed, as each person’s outlook was revealed, with distrust in the authentic vote.

Similarly, the justice system has a regulation if reasonable doubt is shaped, one must vote ‘not guilty’. The inconsistent voting became evident in Juror Twelve as he changes his vote from ‘not guilty’ to ‘guilty’ and back to ‘not guilty’ as “[he didn’t] know [and] there [was] a lot proof to sift. This [was] a reasonably complicated enterprise. ” (p. 54). Additionally, because the evidence reasoning ‘guilty’ is carefully re-examined, the change of the votes start, and gradually most jurors change their votes, considering the opposite aspect of the case. Juror Nine is the first to vary his vote as “the boy on trial [was] most likely responsible.

But [he wanted] to pay attention to more” (p. 20) giving his help to Juror Eight. The judgement of each jury member is required to form a verdict via a unanimous jury the timeframe permits this to be completely examined. It becomes obvious that a unanimous jury is extra superior and nicely framed compared to a majority verdict system. This is summarised as the in depth timeframe in a unanimous verdict system permits the evidence to be precisely re-examined. Equally, it reveals jurors’ prejudices that affect their verdicts and allows every juror to contribute their opinions. Consequently, this implies that a unanimous jury system needs to be retained.

Written by Essay Examples

12 Month Football Training Program

15 Mind Blowing Documentaries on Netflix You Can Watch Right Now