Use discount code: LoveMyDaddy and get 19% OFF your order! Hurry up! Get your Father’s Day Gift from ExclusivePapers.com!
The movie 12 angry men start after the presentation of closing argument in a case that involved murder, as the judge gives his jury instruction. The question the decision is all about is if the 18 year old defendant man murdered his farther. Further on, the jury is instructed that, a guilty verdict will lead to mandatory death sentence. The 12 of them moves to the jury room, where they are acquainted with each others personalities and case discussion. The plot is just all about their difficulty in reaching at a consensus in other cases, to the prejudice to the jurors'. In the whole of their discussion, there is no single juror who calls another one by name, as there names are unknown to each other. However, at last, Sweeney' and Fonda's characters say their last names as McArdle and Davis respectively.
Buy Government Movie Review Paper essay paper online
As Fonda, I view that this boy is innocent, lets not blame the boy's behavior to the murder, but blame how he had been slapped and mistreated severally. Let us not be biased by being stereotypes ion our interpretations, by only looking at the information that confirms our expectations and disregard discomforting ones. If we assume that the boy was guilt, then we will end up remembering that give support to that interpretation. There is some minor disconfirming information that we are ignoring here. For instance, we not fail to see the important details like the way the father used to walk while limping. The female eye witness testified here, had marks on her eyes that were due to the eye glass prescription, and also that the knife that killed father was not usual. Lets us try to see that, the noisy train made it much impossible to hear the boy yelling I'm "gonna kill ya." all these information when reasoned well might prove our thinking otherwise, (Fonda,& Rose, ).
According to the movie, in the American Court system, the element of jury trial is to make an examination of particular reality get the truth based only upon the presented evidence to the jury in court. The Movie makes an assumption that, as a jury, I will make fair judgment and without any personal bias, the 12 men in the movie who at the beginning; every one of them seemed strange to the other. They all have the fate of an 18 year old youngster resting in their hands. Though at the beginning, all of the seemed to be sure that the boy was guilty, except only one who had reasonable doubt at the back of his mind. After a few hours of consultations and reasoning together, they were able to be convinced due to logistical examination and testimony.
There seem to be no better way of finding justice for all, apart from using juror procedures. This is based on the fact that, it is only in the juror that one can be allowed to defend him or her self. The Court provides both the plaintiff and the defendant are awarded equal chance of proving not guilt while the plaintiff has also to prove beyond doubt that the defendant ids guilt. Even after evidence presentation, such evidence has to be examined by a panel of jurors, who have unfamiliar to each other, meaning that they will be having independent mind, as seen in the movie '12 angry men'. Any jury having enough facts to convince others wins the case, if no agreement reached been the jurors, there isn't any judgment passed. Though the only problem is that, some of jurors might not be having facts, they might follow others just to save time. Also during discussion, other factors like racism, social class among others might arise.
At the end, the group walked out of Courthouse and scattered, everyone going his own route. This scene has been used to mean symbolism in the movie. The act of scattering showed that, they came from different culture, and everyone was going his own. It also depicts diversified minds such individuals have, they have nothing in common, as don't know each other hence have nothing to share, the only thing that brought them together was just a murder case, when they are not dealing with the case, and there differences do exist. It also shows some ethical essence, as no one wants to be influenced by the other.