The tutorial discussion this week was essentially discussing how the system operates and some of the flaws within the system such as false convictions which come about through human error or in extreme cases racial bias (Alberto F. Alesina, Eliana La Ferrara, 2011). There was also discussion about the members of the jury and if they are qualified or competent to decide he guilt or innocence of an individual based on their opinions and perceptions of the trial. My view on the criminal justice system is that overall the system is adequately effective in terms of providing a fair trial for the accused and well suited to punish individuals based on viable evidence and the judgment of experienced judges and magistrates. These issues reflect the interests of the JSB173 unit because the unit focuses on a fair trial through either the
"Set in the sweltering summer of 1957, Reginald Rose bases his play “12 Angry Men” on the notion that personal experience has the capacity to influence and sway our decisions. *Rose specifically amplifies this ideology as throughout the play, as a myriad of contrasting backstories are seen to be the foundation of the characters judgments. Set amongst a court case apropos to a 16 year old boy convicted of killing his father, the “reasonable doubt” underlying his conviction is explicitly supported by one Juror 8 amidst 11 others. Demonstrating the diversity of the Jurors, Rose illustrates the “2 America’s” that can be observed in the different Jurors identities. In addition the jurisprudence of America enshrines the belief that “the multitude
At times, there are even attempts through the legal system to have their sentences reduced and released on “good behavior”. James Hamm, like any other murderer was sentenced for first degree murder and sent to prison. Unlike many offenders, James took a turn for the better. He accepted full responsibility in taking an innocent life, and as a result, made positive steps towards becoming a better person, perhaps both for himself and for society. While incarcerated, James registered in several courses that improve self worth as well as every work program the prison had to offer.
Twelve Angry Men Essay When your accused of a crime, your first thought regardless of if you did it or not is this: Will the jury find me guilty or not guilty? So many variables come into play when it comes to a jury. Are the juror’s bias and will they listen to reason? Will the jurors have enough time to consider the evidence and not be rushed? Will the jury be composed of my peers?
Admission Ticket 4 Twelve Angry Men From the movie, it was seen that the power of the testimonies given by the eyewitnesses was huge to the juries and it was suggested that a ‘vivid eyewitness account is difficult to erase from juror’s minds ( Leippe,1985) and hence more likely to result in a conviction (Visher,1987). Therefore the jurors should take the misinformation effect into account. For example, a witness heard the boy shouted “I’m going to kill ya” few hours before the father was killed, may lead the witness assumed the boy was the murderer. And also the woman who claimed to see the murder while juror #8 tried to query her reliability of not wearing any visual aids at that time. Although juror #8 was the only one who voted “not guilty” in the open ballot of the earlier scene, he was as Myers (2010) explained that a minority was most persuasive when their arguments were “consistent, persistent and self-confident”.
This is also a system of check and balance that hopefully will contribute to a fair trial. Peremptory challenges are challenges that are allowed by the court to the attorneys which give them the power to eliminate a juror for no reason at all with only two exceptions race or gender. Opening Statements Each lawyer outlines the main points of the case to the jury, putting the best interpretation on the case. Both in voir dire and in opening statements, lawyers also try to make good personal impressions on jurors. (Zalman,
HRMG 6200 / Section 6 August 26, 2012 Week 2 – Interpersonal Behavior Interpersonal Communications: “12 Angry Men” (1957) In the film 12 Angry Men a group of twelve white male jurors are tasked to provide a verdict of guilty or not guilty in a case judging an 18-year-old minority (Puerto Rican) boy of murdering his father. All 12 jurors come from a different walk of life and although all members are Caucasian, the group is extremely diverse. As a result, several personality conflicts emerge and highlight the many differences these twelve strangers have (cultural/value based/assumptions). These individual differences and previously formed biases play a major role in each juror’s opinion, which have an affect on the overall decision-making process and ultimately the final verdict of the jury. This analysis and study of group dynamics will concentrate on the importance of interpersonal as well as intergroup communication.
The old man who first changed his vote acknowledged this admirable transformational leadership quality when he commented: “it is not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others. He gambled for support and I gave it to him”. A transformational leader is a role model: • He powerfully modeled having a thoughtful, investigative and inquiring mind to the rest of the jury members by re-examining the key evidences of the prosecutor and the 2 witnesses. Other members of the jury soon followed his example and started raising “reasonable doubts” which led to a unanimous “Not guilty” verdict. • He Frequently reinforces that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and that if there is reasonable doubt, then they should acquit the kid • This character has a very clear idea of what the goal is here.
This book explores the views of eight different men who have well-educated yet differing opinions on the issue. In this book I am drawn to the experiences of Alex Kazinski, a federal judge for the court of appeals. He discusses the case of a young man named Thomas Baal who brutally stabbed a thirty-four year old woman for money in 1988 (2-4). Kazinski states, “Whatever qualms I had about the efficacy or the morality of the death penalty were drowned out by the pitiful cries of the victims screaming from between the lines of a dry legal prose” (Bedau and Cassell 3). He goes on to explain how Mr. Baal refuses his right to appeal and instead expresses his wish to be put to death (Bedau and Cassell
The accused Tom Robinson was called to the witnessing chair by Atticus. Atticus asked him a ton of questions, Tom Robinson was so frightened and nervous, that he could barely speak; it was like he was choking in his own spit or in his tongue. It was now the Ewell family’s lawyer’s turn to ask questions, he got the same out of Tom although it was more in his favor. It was now time for a verdict, the jury went to come up with a verdict, it took some time for them, but they had finally reached a verdict. They accused Tom Robinson guilty of raping a white woman Mayella Ewell, and Tom Robinson was sentenced to