The drama’s focus is on a jury’s deliberation over a young man’s fate and the crucial role truth plays in relation to the decision. This idea is developed in the play through the actions and statements of characters like Jurors 3, 8, 10 and 11. The 8th Juror believes that a thorough examination of the evidence of the case is vital when making these deliberations. This leads him to review the case logically in order to arrive at the truth as he is trying to demonstrate that there is reasonable doubt about the boy’s guilt. The 10th Juror is prejudiced and racist against the boy and his race as well as his background.
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
They would first help the man of their own skin color than help someone who is different than every one of them. When the decision on whether or not he was guilty was being made up by a biased jury he was sure to be charged as guilty. Racism plays a huge role in the fairness of this trial. Majority of the town wanted Tom Robinson to be found guilty simply because of the color of his skin even if they had never met him. With a judge and jury and audience all watching and participating in the trial with the mindset that he is worse than them just because of his skin if unfair.
Reasonable doubt can be a very difficult term to understand. If a jury has any reasonable doubt that the accused may not have committed the crime, then it must enter a not guilty verdict. Each person may have their own opinion of the term reasonable doubt. In the play Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, Juror Eight stands against 11 other men, fighting to find reasonable doubt in a homicide case. The accused is a young 19 year old boy, and the victim is the young boy’s father.
Jury Nullification Paper Katrice Brown CJA/334 Cultural Diversity in Criminal Justice 28 July 2014 Professor S. Jury Nullification Paper “Jury nullification occurs in a trial when the jury determines verdict based on personal belief, even though the member of the jury believes the defendant to be guilty of the charges” ("Jury Nullification," 2014). Jury nullification can be very inequitable to parties involved in many court cases. It is because the jury chose to ignore the facts of the case and the judge’s instructions, and based his or her decision on personal opinion. When the race of the defendant has any cause on the outcome of the juries’ decision to drop charges regardless of the amount of evidence, raced-based jury nullification becomes the case. Race-Based Jury Nullification Race-based jury nullification has been in the criminal justice system for many years.
Finally, the juror who pushed for not guilty from the start gets the coat of the juror who was the last hold out for guilty and helps him into it. No dialogue is spoken. Four times, gestures of kindness between men who were at each others’ throat take place. This silent scene is so much more powerful than if one of the characters had simply said, “I think we’ve come to a place where we can respect each other despite our differences.” Making the same point with non-verbal cues was much more effective story telling. According to me, all of the jurors except one showed passive behavior in the start of the movie.
Using Jurors Three, Eight, and Ten will show you whether or not they show justice. Starting with Juror 3, we can see from the beginning of Act One, Juror Three makes his decision without looking at the evidence much like the others. Yet what makes Juror 3 special is that he has a dislike for the rebellious youth. “It’s the kids… I’m gonna bust you up into little pieces… Rotten kids! I hate tough kids!”(21).
Also in question if jury nullification challenges the statute of the law when making a decision to acquit the defendant on how the jury feels fit on the punishment of the defendant and the law. Past criminal trials have made headlines and the jury’s verdict in question. This allows society to lose faith in the criminal justice system and affect future trials. Jury nullification decides the fate of a defendant and questioning if the jury-based the decision on race should not be an issue. For race-based jury nullification Race-based nullification is not promoted as a positive thing all the time but evening out races throughout a jury may influence the verdict.
In another one of Jost’s articles, “The Jury System,” he points out, “Public discontent with the jury system appears to be increasing. The O.J Simpson murder trial dramatized concerns about jury selection, trial procedures, and the possible influence of race on jury verdicts in criminal cases” (Jost). That being said, it is clear that prejudice can influence the outcome of a court case, thus wrongfully allowing a guilty man to walk free, or vice-versa, imprisoning an innocent man for a crime he did not commit. This example brings up another flaw in the judicial system:
At the beginning of the jury discussion an initial vote reveals that 11 jurors think the delinquent is guilty and only juror 8 votes for not guilty. By questioning the validity of the evidence and pointing out some of the biases to the other jury members, one juror after the other changes his mind until the unanimous vote at the end of the movie is not guilty. In the following context I will discuss which heuristics and biases influenced each single member of the jury and what made them to change their mind. Instead of listing the jurors by their jury number, I will discuss the characters according to the order they decide to vote in favor of the defendant. Juror 8 is the only one at the beginning to vote not guilt.