12 Angry Men proves that ultimately no one is presumed innocent until proven guilty It is stated in a court of law that every man must be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that the evidence is sufficient enough to prove the defendant is guilty or not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This clear statement is however neglected in the play of ‘Twelve Angry Men’. Rose Reginald clearly portrays that one person can have enough fortitude to stand alone against eleven other jurors who also proved against them that the evidence they argued in the jury room based on the court case contained flaws in them. The decision whether the prosecution was innocent or guilty was being influenced by personal feelings from a number of jurors which was realised
The vote changed 11 not guilty to 1 guilty. That one standing man was the main juror up for sending the boy to the chair. The man had a bad experience and a kind of hate towards young kids because he once had a boy who walked out on him. However by everyone bringing all the attention towards him the man eventually tried to make a point and stay with his guilty vote, but soon enough he broke down and cried. As he cried, he yelled out not guilty.
I do not get why they have done this most people have said that it is because he is a black man and that in his testimony he said he felt sorry for her (Mayella.) I feel as though that what everybody is saying is true. But it shouldn’t be like that, if he isn’t guilty then he shouldn’t be convicted it is just wrong, very, very wrong. They need to sort something out now, because Tom Robinson is about to be executed for no reason, this is cruel and in humane. Can’t anybody do anything about it, we are talking about an innocent young man who is crippled about to be executed for nothing.
Each of the others is eventually compelled to change his mind at least once (12 juror changes his mind 3 times), usually thanks to an argument posited by 8th. Yet while he is firm in his position, he is not inflexible. Rather, he regularly and openly admits to his own uncertainties, frequently answering others' questions with an honest 'I don't know'; by not hiding his vulnerability he ultimately wins over the entire jury. Similarly, when he first justifies his vote of 'not guilty', he states ' I haven't got anything brilliant. I only know as much as you do' (p.13).
Beatrice Porter SOC120 Ethic and Social Responsibility 10-18-2012 After reading the article “Some Moral Minima” I totally agree with issues he points out on several things such as murder, rape, terrorism, incest, polygamy, and the other disturbing issues mentioned. I can’t think of a logical reason that at any point raping someone or sleeping with a child of yours would consider ok in today’s society but then again everyone has their idea of what is considered right and wrong. Why would anybody argue this? Every human being has the right to have a safe healthy life without harm especially a child. Children are innocent and they look to us adults and parents as someone they should be able to trust and feel safe with.
Twelve Angry Men is the story of twelve jurors stuck in a room trying to reason out with each other weather a young boy is guilty of killing his father. Emotions flair when one juror stands up for the boy saying that he is indeed not guilty. The story is filled with examples of pathos, ethos and logos. In this writing I will explain some of the spots those three literary tools are used. In the play Twelve Angry Men juror number eight uses ethos when he tries to explain to juror number ten that the old man could not have heard the boy say “I’m going to kill you” to his father.
Baca was put in a lot of situations where being a man was either to make or break him. He would show off just to be noticed and being noticed is what happened. In one situation, Baca writes “The only way I seemed to impress them was by my fighting” (page #); he was like a hero in Theresa and her friend’s eyes. If he backed out his friends wouldn’t respect it and fighting was the majority is his life through out the memoir. Baca later states, while being in jail, “All the fights I’d won to prove I was a man didn’t matter; nothing mattered expect what I was going to do now.
Ethical perspective is not always about making everyone happy, because it is virtually impossible to make everyone happy. Ethical perspective is more focused on making the best decision for the good of all individuals involved as well as setting the standard in future situations. These ethical lenses helped to influence my decisions based on the information that was provided. It allowed me to be fair and just towards all individuals concerned as well as guide provide me with the proper steps to
For example, he first started steeling in small place like supermarkets event if he had money,, then, it trills him to kill, he was expecting from six to twelve person in the Clutters’ house (see page 234), and as he repeats over and over, no witnesses (see page 233). 3) Was justice served in the end? Explain. I do think justice was served, because even if Agent Dewey worked hard with his team, they had not abandoned the case. Also, Perry and Dick weren’t judged like mentally ill person even thought their lawyer called twice some psychiatrists to make some reports.
He also mentioned that a large majority of juveniles were sentence to life in prison without parole and that they not even killed no one but were part of a crime. After a voting against the law he couldn’t accumulated enough supporters. Then after the extremely modest nature of Yee’s bill, this flip flopping is baffling. The law didn’t change regarding juveniles sentence to life, but what the law change was that every youth who were convicted could ask the judge to reexamine their cases after 15 years in prison. It doesn’t mean that after they will go free what it means is that the