Juror 7 saved the whole process himself by being open to new ideas and questioning what he knew. Not only did Juror Number 7 save the argument of Juror Number 6, his attention to detail and his observation skills ended up helping to convince the rest of the men that the defendant may not be guilty. Juror 7 noticed the indents on the face of Juror Number 3, due to his glasses, and along with the rest of the panel pieced together that the woman who observed the murder most likely wore glasses. They concluded that she was probably not wearing them at night due to fact that they are uncomfortable and painful. They made the conclusion based on his facts that the information from the
The judges do all the gathering of evidence and questioning of the witnesses before they decide to vote guilty or not. There are defense attorneys and prosecuting attorneys present at trial. Ultimately the trial is to prove ones innocence because they are automatically considered guilty in the Inquisitorial system. To us here in the United States it would be unfair to presume that someone is guilty right away. We try to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are innocent and it is the burden of the state to prove they are guilty.
In fact, throughout the entire film, it is probably Davis’s amicable nature as well as cool reasoning that most persuades the jury members. He approaches the case in a naive style. He uses the phrase, “what if...” and “it might be possible” when he presents his ideas. He does not try to force his opinions on the other jurors; instead he just wants to understanding the reasoning behind their guilty verdict. Another example of a power tactic used by Davis is bargaining.
The first Juror to vote not-guilty in the case, is Juror eight, a self-actualized man with an Engineer-type personality, who suggests the jury first discuss the facts of the case before condemning the accused eighteen year old to death. As a natural thinker, expert in rhetoric, and individual with a high social and emotional IQ, which allows him to relate and understand people well, Juror eight manages to put doubt into the minds of the other juror’s about the accuracy of the evidence provided in the courtroom. For instance, he uses a combination of ethos, logos and pathos when explaining how the court story of the club legged old man, who heard the murder and saw the boy running down the stairs, flawed. In the story the club legged old man tells in court, he heard someone cry-out and a body hit the floor above him before he hurried from his bed to the door at the end of the hall, about sixty-five feet away, in ten seconds and opened the door just in time to see the eighteen year old running down the stairs. In the jury room, Juror eight first used pathos, to appease to the emotion and sympathy of the
Atticus did not only defend a black man but he had the courage and strength to try and defend him. All other lawyers would have either not taken the case or would have, but not tried at all and let an innocent man die. But Atticus was different; he was one of the few white people that believed that black people are equal to white people. The black community thought of Atticus as a great man, and he was very much respected in the black community. After the court case when Atticus was leaving, the community of black people rose in respect of his heroic actions in which he presented in defending Tom.
He gets absolutely passionate when enacting his work as a lawyer : « He emphasised his words by tapping his knuckles on the table » and really invests all his energy in this case. He disapproved of the Ewells unjust accusation of the so-called rape 'commited' by Tom Robinson as he knows he is innocent , and tries to the best of his abilities to win this case to be able to save the poor man from death penalty, but even if he knows that the Ewels are lying he still feels compassion for Mayella, he treats her politely , « I won't try to scare you for a while...», ««... Miss Mayella », said Atticus in
The malicious acts committed by Malcolm X reflect the idea that people ignore truth to conform to society. Known for having strong opinions, Malcolm X seems to be an unlikely victim of blind conformity. However, as shown in his essay, “My First Conk”, Malcolm X was victimized by this need to conform. Changing to look or behave like another because it is more desired by the public is due to a disregarding of self-claimed morals and values, an over emphasis of the media and outside opinions, and an insecurity. In “My First Conk”, Malcolm X assured that black people were being brainwashed to believe that they actually were inferior to white people, thus they conked their hair; which was a hair straightener gel made from lye popular among African-American men from the 1920s to the 1960s.
Jean Val Jean had to conceal his identity in order to help people. “To save from punishment perhaps a little to severe...must an entire country be let go to ruin” (Hugo 92). Once at a noble position, if Jean Val Jean revealed himself as a convict he would surely be punished. Another character that is degraded by society is Champmathieu. Champmathieu is arrested for a crime that he did not commit.
During the time period in which the story takes place, black people were not considered equal to white people and were treated horribly as if they were weak and naive. Harper Lee’s novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, describes the racism and prejudice towards black people and how she makes a good diction against it. The black people in the novel are strong-willed for not succumbing to white people for they have their own volition. They are treated like they are naive or ignorant but they have their own intelligence and experiences that proves their strength. Everybody deserves the same justice that everyone else is given in a court of law, no matter if someone is better than them.
Another word for this is "blind justice" which means not blind to the facts but blind to the wealth, color, religion etc. of the accused. In most circumstances, the Judge or Jury is bound to find the accused innocent unless he is convinced "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" of the guilt of the accused In most inquisitorial systems, a criminal defendant does not have to answer questions about the crime itself but may be required to answer all other questions at trial. Many of these other questions concern the defendant's history and would be considered irrelevant and inadmissible in an adversarial system. A criminal defendant in an inquisitorial system is the first to testify.