Free 12 Angry Men Essay Sample
|← Constitutional and Administrative Essay||The Capital Punishment →|
Buy Cheap 12 Angry Men Essay
Every person placed on trial is usually considered guilty until being proven innocent. In the film 12 Angry Men, this hypothesis was almost considered as false for the jurors participating in a murder case. However, one juror upheld the “innocent until proven guilty” theory and helped in saving the life of the accused person. The juror had a challenge of showing the other 11 jurors that he could affirm with the adequate and valid evidence that a boy was faultily accused of committing his father’s murder. Reginald Rose illustrates how the integrity of one person helped in making a difference during a judgment process. It is apparent that the juror # 8 saved someone’s life. The core issue that arose among the jury members was the fact that other jury members failed to cross-examine the evidence presented in court before making the final judgment. The film focused on the importance of evaluating the validity and truthfulness of evidence before passing on judgment.
Amidst the severe and aggressive scrutiny, the juror # 8 was the only juror to cast the not guilty vote on the murder case involving a boy stabbed his father to death. The juror # 8 does not believe into the utter innocence of the boy; rather he believes that it would be erroneous to execute the boy without a prior discussion. The jurors # 3 and # 10 turn out to be the most hostile and hold the belief that the boy murdered his father. They consider everything uttered in the courtroom to be true leading to the conclusion that the boy is guilty. However, the juror # 8 had a considerable doubt regarding the case and did not want to vote guilty until he had gathered an adequate evidence to affirm that the boy murdered his father. The juror # 8 cross-examined the different points made regarding the boy who allegedly had murdered his father. It turns out that all the evidence presented by 11 jurors contained some flaws. For example, a woman who purportedly witnessed on the incidence did not have her glasses. In addition, the stab wound appeared to have been made by a taller person using a switchblade. The establishment of the clarity of some key evidences resulted into the jurors re-examining their guilty votes. When more key evidences became clear, other jurors concluded that the boy was innocent.
In conclusion, the film affirms the significance of the “innocent until proven guilty” hypothesis, implying that jurors are supposed to cross-examine the flaw key evidences presented before passing on with their judgments. The issue resulting to the differences between the jurors is that those who voted guilty trusted the evidence presented in court without cross-examination, whereas juror #8 held that a cross-examination is need in order to avoid erroneous execution of the boy. Overall, the four issues noticed about the jury in the film are flaws in evidence presented in court, failure to cross-examine the evidence, possibility of erroneous execution of the innocent boy, and the importance of establishing the validity and truthfulness of evidence before passing judgment.