Introduction
The movie offers a dramatic scene in a court setting providing the audiences with legal thrills concerning an endless quantity of fictional and realistic evidence concerning a murder case (Abramson 1). However, few scenes concentrate on the events outside the courtroom presenting the themes of transparency and accountability within the police department. This brings the concepts of the good and the bad cops within the police units. These perfectly rhyme with the intelligent investigators, and forensic groups who get involved with similar experiences. The lawyers present high ambitions as substantiated by the proceedings of the court, as well as, events outside the courtroom. In addition, the jurors show expressionless faces given their roles concerning the presented cases. They have become diminished into intermittent and mandatory response groups by the court systems (Abramson 1).
Summary of the movie
âTwelve Angry Menâ pursues the judgment procedure that the jury undertakes in solving a murder case while still following ongoing adjustments of eleven jury members (Rose 2). The setting is a courtroom on a hot afternoon summer day. The scene starts with the raising of the courtroom curtains after which the judge proclaims that the dependant gets charged with first-degree slaughter. The judge continues to state that such an offense leads to the compulsory death penalty. Additionally, the judge addresses the jury concerning the case by offering them the mandate to exonerate the dependant in case of a logical query (Del 30).
The jurors are entire of the male gender and sit around a big conference table. In this setting, no air conditioning is presenting hot conditions that contrast with the ensuing court environment (Rose 3). It seems like the jury has already made up thoughts concerning the judgment of the dependant. It can be substantiated by the scorns that the dependant obtains from some constituents of the jury. The story presented is that the young adult purchases a knife although it soon gets lost the night his father gets stabbed. However, from the look of things, the young man seems guilty since the story about the loss of the knife seems unambiguous. Other jurors condemn the young man although one juror understands that one is never guilty until proven so.
The juror feels obliged to ensure that justice transpires in the presented case. He feels that sentencing the young man without substantial evidence would be a failure of the court and the whole justice system. Soon after, the jury discusses the presented case by laying down the facts (Rose 3). Therefore, a review of what the jurors know is undertaken. According to the witnesses, the old man existed, below the area in which the murder took place. By the presented witness, he heard the son warn his father that he would exterminate him. The witness further explains the events concerning that dreadful night. He said he heard someone fall and later on saw the son freeing the scene.
According to juror four, the story appears to be insubstantial or rather unconvincing. In defense, the son claims to have attended a movie even though there are no witnesses to substantiate this claim. Following witnesses, a woman alleges to have observed everything through her window of a high train. In the court session, the presented claims were considered substantial evidence. In addition, more information was obtained on the frequent beatings that the father inflicted on his son. The son had recently been detained in connection to other unlawful acts such as mugging. The son had also been in a reform institution after he stabbed someone with a knife.
According to juror eight, numerous questions were that presented queries were unasked and thus unreciprocated presenting a dilemma in the whole case (Rose 4). The juror requests for the murder weapon and presents resentments towards the jurors who assume that the boy stabbed his father. Therefore, he presents another perception that another person holding a similar knife stabbed the father. Controversially, the juror presents a knife similar to the murder weapon insisting that the young man tells the truth.
Personal opinion
In my opinion, the young man may be either innocent or guilty since the presented evidence and witnesses provide little substantiation towards the judgment. The court and the jury need to acquire adequate and solid evidence to convict a person. The jury seems to have already made their verdict even with the inadequate evidence and witnesses presented in the case. The court system is required to prove someone to be guilty or not and not to mock or criticize the dependants.
Convicting a dependant without an illustration of guiltiness is often reflected on as an infringement of the privilege of the dependant. Presenting someone as a suspect of committing any unlawful acts, never guarantees that they are the persons who committed the acts. Therefore, suspects ought to be treated as innocent individuals until the court through adequate evidence manages to bring out the truth behind such acts. However, in this case, the jurors treat the suspect as the guilty party regardless of whether adequate evidence has been presented.
A jury system made up of unqualified individuals in the field of law, cannot offer sound reasons, concerning certain mysterious happenings. The jury system ought to be composed of people who can think constructively in line with the presented cases. Juror 12 who presents adequate reasoning, which can be utilized, in solving the puzzle presented in the case, can substantiate this. The jury in the movie is not fit to carry out executions given their inadequate knowledge of the implications of awarding suspects undeserved sentences. In the case of the young man, offering a verdict on the death penalty cannot be reversed meaning that no mistakes ought to be made in making such judgments (Del 434).
Recommended changes
In my opinion, the recommendation that needs to be implemented is the involvement of a jury system that is not biased, open-minded, and that offers good substantiation before making ambiguous decisions. The jury system ought to be made up of people with adequate knowledge of the law with relevant or related professionalism.
Reasons for the changes
The jury system requires open-minded individuals who can relate things, and manage to solve complex cases presented by the court. The system necessitates individuals knowledgeable in law to apply the principles learned in the resolution of complex cases. The system has to have unbiased individuals to prevent obstruction of justice. These individuals need to have critical thinking in the decisions they make since these decisions, however, small they may seem affect a great deal of the dependant especially if they are innocent.
Conclusion
Decision-making in criminal law plays a chief role and its execution in pursuit of justice ought to be carried out following the criminal procedures. The court system necessitates carrying out a thorough investigation and substantiation before offering a person any judgment. In doing so, justice can be awarded most efficiently thus; preventing innocent people from suffering for the actions of another individual.
Works Cited
Abramson, Jeffrey. Anger at Angry Jurors. 2007. Web.
Del, Carmen R. V. Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2006. Print.
Rose, Reginald. Twelve Angry Men. 2010. Web.