12 Angry Men

Monday April 9th, 2007

Criminal Justice Twelve Angry Men

During the course of our class we have encountered plenty of important topics and vital information that is essential to the field of the Criminal Justice system. Such as; Crime and justice including laws, Victimization and Criminal behavior, Laws, Police officers and Law enforcement and the criminal justice system in itself. These topics are daily situations yet individuals are oblivious to what’s going on and that in it can be a major problem to the community. On that note this paper will express the ignorance and selfish values of twelve individuals by fully explaining the movie “Twelve Angry Men”

This movie goes to show how such crucial facts and minuet evidence if not processed fully and clearly can change the outcome in such a big way. In this jury you have 12 men from all different walks of life, 12 different times, and 12 different personalities. Who have an obligation to come to one conclusion and that’s whether or not the young man on trial is guilty of murdering his father or is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Under much frustration and lack of patience these 12 men began to get unruly and unfocused. Throughout this distraction key terms get misused, facts get turned around and more importantly emotions start to cross making it hard for these men to produce a verdict.

Yet with the help of one aged yet wise and optimistic man he speaks his opinion, one that starts to not change however open the minds of the other eleven men on the jury. By doing this the man puts out a visual picture by verbally expressing the facts discussed during the trial, he uses props from the room and other items the he himself brought with him during the course of the trial. Once expressed the gentleman essentially demonstrate that perhaps this young man on trial May or may not be guilty. Which goes to show the lack of research, and misused information that was used in the benefit of the prosecution. For example when a certain factor was brought upon the trail; that being timing, whether or not it took the neighbor 15 seconds to run from his chair all the way to the door. By proving this right or wrong this man Juror #4 put on a demonstration, but first he made sure his notes were correct with the other 11 jurors. After it was established that his facts were indeed accurate he quickly design the room as it was design on the floor plan of the apartment and timed himself to see if it indeed took the neighbor 15 seconds to navigate from point A: his chair, to point B: his apartment door. Now this is were the facts come in, noticing during the trail it was observed that this witness the neighbor happen to be and elderly male who walked with a limb that may have been cause by a stroke. So with this key factor juror #4 demonstrated the act by limping to point A: the Chair to point B; his apartment door. Now before this action was re demonstrated everyone assumed the witness to be correct on the strength that he stated a number, so rather than