Reaction 12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men Reaction Paper The film 12 Angry Men renders an inside look at the inner workings of a gore deliberation as twelve random strangers be c each(prenominal)ed to do their civil duty. In a group of diverse tribe from different backgrounds, Henry Fondas character attempts to convince the rest of his associate degree jurors non to easily convict a troubled adolescent military serviceman just because it would be the simple solution to all of their problems. The jurors be primed(p) in extreme circumstances in which heat and angst drive them to vex for a dishonored finding of fact, despite the clear evidence of reasonable dis turn over presented through the trials facts.In the end, Henry Fondas character gets the other jurors to realize that all of the evidence is specific and they present a not guilty verdict to the judge. This film presents a situation in which it beats clear that previous prejudices move influence the verdict that certain jurors hand d induc e. It is difficult for large number to become unbiased, even in eccentric persons that require them to be. The backgrounds of the various jurors came to light throughout their deliberations. The nonpareil juror that took the most convincing was one that was carrying emotional baggage involving his own tumultuous relationship with his estranged son.Another juror clearly looked down on the suspects impoverished background. One man could care little about the situation and just indispensabilityed to make a baseball game game that night. The jurors had their reasons for voting the elbow rooms that they did, just this proves that everyone has bias ground on their backgrounds and past life experiences. The only way that someone can anatomy an opinion is because they make believe a moral compass that guides them as to what they borrow to be right and wrong. This is what drives a persons beliefs, and this is what influences them the most if they are placed on a jury.The deliber ation room also caused an ill-fitting situation for the jurors. Most people dread the day that they will be called upon to serve on a jury. It devourms like a tedious occupation that takes away from the important things in their personal lives. The extreme heat in the room, plus the eventual rain just heightened the tension, and may have caused the jurors to deal with one another. Most of the jurors just wanted to get out of at that place, but they were reminded that there was a persons life at take chances and they could not take that responsibility lightly. This is an important point o commend because most people do not care one way or another whether a person they do not do goes to jail or not. This is why everyone should take their civil duties seriously. The jurors treated the defendant as if he was the one who had to prove his innocence, as opposed to the usually held notion of the prosecution being given the burden of proof. Everything in the character reference was his fault. Because the knife was unusual, he had to have been the one to dig his father. Because the lady express she saw him killing someone, then she must have been telling the truth.To the jurors who presented a vote for guilt, all of the evidence was clear and they had no doubt that the man was guilty. Henry Fondas character presents to his peers that the defendant did not even have to open his mouth. He should not have to prove his innocence, it is implied in the Constitution. This helps commemorate why evidence gathering is so important to sheaths. If evidence is equanimous properly, then bias can show through in jurisprudence work. The jurors assumed that the cops were diligent with their investigation, so the defendant must be guilty because the cops would not have arrested him if he were not.The bias of the jurors in favor of uprightness enforcement officers persuaded them to vote for a conviction while deliberating. The jurors also were presented with evidence that was circumstantial at best. Henry Fondas character attempts to prove that the facts of the case do not add up. Everything that the prosecution had laid out before them was ground on multiple assumptions. They assumed that the lady across the street could see through a passing convey. They assumed that the old man could head to his front door in 15 due souths.They assumed that the boy would stab his father downward in the chest. All of these assumptions would lead anyone to believe that the young man was guilty, but when taken as parts of a whole, the case starts to break down. The lady could not have seen the boy through the train from 60 feet away at night if she wore glasses. The old man could not get up from his bed and make it to his door if he was manner of walking with a limp. The defendant could not have stabbed his father downward because his instincts with a switchblade would have told him to stab forward, not down.It is surprising how poorly the case was thrown toget her, yet random strangers were so convinced that they were right to want to convict a seemingly troubled young man based on simple assumptions. Henry Fondas character was not difficult to prove that the young man was innocent. He was trying to prove that there was reasonable doubt in the case. In the beginning of the votes, he insisted that he voted not guilty because he believed that the boy deserved better than a five-minute deliberation when a life is at stake. It is hard for common people to place themselves in others shoes because most people do not see themselves as sorrys.Anyone who has a previous history of delinquency is automatically assumed to be a repeat offender when it comes to crime. The beauty of the U. S. criminal justice organization is the fact that innocence does not have to be proven. Everyone is assumed to be innocent, but this is hard for jurors to contemplate when they have been presented with what they believe to be facts by the prosecution. The bias of t he various jurors was apparent throughout the deliberation. completely when the rest of the men refused to entertain foolishness did one juror give up his prejudice rant against people from the slums of town.No matter how much a jury is supposed to be fair, everyone will have bias in their decisions because decisions are based on past experiences of others. The criminal justice system is not perfect, but it attempts to be fair to those who cannot defend themselves. This film shows a positive point of the trial system. One person stands up for the defendant and tries to prove that his life is worth at least a second look. This is why most people would rather have a jury of their peers determining their fate, as opposed to a single judge and executioner.