Assignment 5
After reading this play, do you think ‘trial by jury’ is a good system?
Why, or why not?
After I read the twelve angry men, it becomes clear that the jury system is one of
the most powerful tools for ensuring justice in the USA democracy. Twelve jurors
will debate about a person if he is innocent or not innocent. In this play the jurors
will deliberate the fate of a young man accused of a murder. At first, almost all
jurors believe that the boy is guilty. Only one juror believes that the boy is not
guilty. Because of this juror they are going to debate about the fate of the boy.
They are going through every evidence and this will be discussed and debunked.
This process demonstrates the strength of the jury system, because the decision
doesn’t rely on one person, but every juror in that room. This decision is
completely unanimous. This structure forces the group to discussions, debating
and the consideration of multiple perspectives. Because of juror 8 they all need
to see other perspectives, which eventually lead to all the invalid proof. The fact
that one juror can stop a very rushed verdict shows that the system is very
potential to protect the innocence of the boy. This is why I think that the jury
system is a very good system.
However, The Twelve Angry Men also exposes the dangers in the jury system.
Almost every juror is influenced by their prejudice, personal issues of just
laziness, juror 10 is for example openly racist, while juror 3 allows his relationship
with his son what clouds his judgement. Other jurors want to finish quickly so
they can get back to their personal lives. These behaviours shows that the juror
system can be really vulnerable to human prejudices and emotional reasoning.
Despite these weaknesses, the juror system supports the idea that this trial can
lead to a good outcome. It encourage the people of the state for a responsibility
and it reflects the democratic ideals.
Write down for each of the jurors what you think of their behaviour
during the play. Explain why you feel this way with examples from the
text.
- Juror 1 (foreman): This man tries to keep order and keep the discussion on
track. The man is not very vocal about the case itself, he takes his role
very seriously. For example, he tries to ensure everyone gets a chance to
speak and manages the votes fairly. I think that this man is good for
keeping order and takes responsibility.
- Juror 2: This man is easily influenced, but during the trial he speaks more
and more. At first he doesn’t really form his own opinion, but later in the
trial he begins to ask questions and forms is own opinion, like when he
brings op the angle of the stab wound. I think that this man should speak
more and let his opinion see to others.
- Juror 3: this man is very aggressive and stubborn. He lets is personal issues
cloud his judgement. His anger peaks when he shouts: “I’ll kill him!”. I
think that his man should keep his anger under control and let other speak
too.
After reading this play, do you think ‘trial by jury’ is a good system?
Why, or why not?
After I read the twelve angry men, it becomes clear that the jury system is one of
the most powerful tools for ensuring justice in the USA democracy. Twelve jurors
will debate about a person if he is innocent or not innocent. In this play the jurors
will deliberate the fate of a young man accused of a murder. At first, almost all
jurors believe that the boy is guilty. Only one juror believes that the boy is not
guilty. Because of this juror they are going to debate about the fate of the boy.
They are going through every evidence and this will be discussed and debunked.
This process demonstrates the strength of the jury system, because the decision
doesn’t rely on one person, but every juror in that room. This decision is
completely unanimous. This structure forces the group to discussions, debating
and the consideration of multiple perspectives. Because of juror 8 they all need
to see other perspectives, which eventually lead to all the invalid proof. The fact
that one juror can stop a very rushed verdict shows that the system is very
potential to protect the innocence of the boy. This is why I think that the jury
system is a very good system.
However, The Twelve Angry Men also exposes the dangers in the jury system.
Almost every juror is influenced by their prejudice, personal issues of just
laziness, juror 10 is for example openly racist, while juror 3 allows his relationship
with his son what clouds his judgement. Other jurors want to finish quickly so
they can get back to their personal lives. These behaviours shows that the juror
system can be really vulnerable to human prejudices and emotional reasoning.
Despite these weaknesses, the juror system supports the idea that this trial can
lead to a good outcome. It encourage the people of the state for a responsibility
and it reflects the democratic ideals.
Write down for each of the jurors what you think of their behaviour
during the play. Explain why you feel this way with examples from the
text.
- Juror 1 (foreman): This man tries to keep order and keep the discussion on
track. The man is not very vocal about the case itself, he takes his role
very seriously. For example, he tries to ensure everyone gets a chance to
speak and manages the votes fairly. I think that this man is good for
keeping order and takes responsibility.
- Juror 2: This man is easily influenced, but during the trial he speaks more
and more. At first he doesn’t really form his own opinion, but later in the
trial he begins to ask questions and forms is own opinion, like when he
brings op the angle of the stab wound. I think that this man should speak
more and let his opinion see to others.
- Juror 3: this man is very aggressive and stubborn. He lets is personal issues
cloud his judgement. His anger peaks when he shouts: “I’ll kill him!”. I
think that his man should keep his anger under control and let other speak
too.
