12 Angry Men is a movie that discusses whether or not a defendant is guilty of homicide. It is set in a jury room with twelve jurors who argue about the outcome of the case based on prejudice, logic, and emotions. The title “12 Angry Men” refers to the tension that arises from jurors’ interactions. Unlike other movies on criminal justice that present the final verdict of the court, 12 Angry Men does not inform the audience whether or not the boy in question is guilty of killing his father. It is a movie that highlights and discusses the principle of reasonable doubt. Notably, the US Constitution asserts that a defendant is innocent until there is a unanimous decision to ascertain that they are guilty. This film highlights the observations and conclusions that jurors make before determining the outcome of a case. Although the court requires the jury members to ensure that there is proof beyond reasonable doubt to charge a defendant, the decision-making process in the jury room is based on the emotional attachment and prejudice of the jurors.
From the movie, it is evident that the jury decision is based on the members’ emotional attachment to the case. After conducting the first vote, eleven members voted the defendant is guilty except one member, Juror #8, who stated that the decision was made abruptly (Lumet, 1957). He argued that the boy deserved a fair trial. At this point, the juror felt uneasy for the way the jury was ignoring the gaps in eyewitness statements, and the evidence presented. Two jury members, Juror #3 and Juror #10, elicited emotional responses during the decision-making process. Juror #10 was angry at the defendant since he believed that the community he came from was ignorant and had no regard for human life while Juror #3 threatened to kill Juror #8 for opposing his views (Lumet, 1957). The exchange among the members in the jury demonstrated that the feelings of hatred, anger, contempt, remorse, and guilt guide the outcome of court cases. Jury officials who have emotions that relate to certainties such as happiness, anger, and contentment are likely to believe that their decision is right; thus, they may not rely on further information or evidence (Nunez et al., 2016). This insight is evident in the film. When everyone changed their decision and stated that the defendant was not guilty, Juror #3 was not convinced; he became angry and said that he would stand alone since the full information on the case had already been presented (Lumet, 1957). His anger prevented him from listening to further critical analysis of the case that Juror #8 offered. Notably, when a juror has emotions that are related to uncertainties such as hope, surprise, and fear, they tend to seek additional information (Nunez et al., 2016). In the jury room, Juror #8 was worried that the decision was being rushed. At the same time, he was hopeful that the jury officials would change their perspectives and support his arguments. Eventually, the jurors lend Juror #8 their support since they admired his courage and belief in a fair trial.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Furthermore, the jury decisions are based on the prejudices and beliefs of the jury members. Juror #10 described the stereotypes associated with a given community; the defendant could be an African American, Hispanic, or Asian. He kept referring to them as “these people” while stating that they have no regard for human life, are lazy, and arrogant (Lumet, 1957). One notices that Juror #10 did not consider the evidence and facts presented before the jury since he had already made his decision. Another member, Juror #3 made stereotypical comments about the jury members. When Juror #8 experimented to prove that the defendant could not have committed the crime, Juror #3 stated that he was not convinced, unlike the rest of the jurors whom he referred to as old ladies (Lumet, 1957). The official implied that women are easily gullible. However, a white man like himself should be allowed to make a unanimous decision even if it disregards the fair trial process. Racial bias is expected in the jury decision-making processes; members from minority communities are likely to receive harsher sentences (Bergold et al., 2020). In death penalty cases—such as the one presented in the movie—lack the representation of the minority populations. Hence the reason that the decision-making processes were hastened and had limited facts and lots of errors. Juror #11 was the only immigrant in the group, and when he tried to describe the challenges that people from his community face, Juror #10 criticized him, stating that such issues did not matter (Lumet, 1957). Underrepresentation of the minority communities in the jury room explains why the decision to charge the defendant was rushed. In the jury room, some jurors have fixated beliefs that some personality traits cannot be changed (Weimann-Saks et al., 2019). This statement explains why Juror #3 and #10 did not want to acquit the defendant of the charges. They associated the boy with ethnic and racial stereotypes. During jury decisions, the jurors are less likely to convict a white person compared to other races, especially when there is inadmissible evidence (Bergold et al., 2020). In the case, there was an issue of ambiguity since the evidence presented had not been well examined. For example, there was the uncertainty of the connection between the switch knife found in the crime and the stab wound found on the chest of the deceased (Lumet, 1957). This issue had to be re-examined by the jurors. Even though most of them noted that the defendant could not have committed the crime, Juror #3 and #10 were not convinced; the racial and ethnic bias guided their decisions.
Nevertheless, the presence of admissible evidence and facts determines the outcome of a jury decision. The typical evidence in criminal trials includes crime scene and autopsy photographs (Grady et al., 2018). However, the evidence has to be significant such that it can make a fact more or less probable. During the first round of voting, Juror #8 voted “not guilty” to ensure that the jury decision covered every aspect of the case (Lumet, 1957). He was not convinced that the defendant should be sentenced without proper investigation. Thus, he experimented to determine whether the older adult reached the door within 15 seconds and later on questioned the testimony of the eye witness (Lumet, 1957). Initially, the juror members voted in favor of sentencing the defendant. However, after they noticed that there were gaps and ambiguity in the evidence presented, they changed their decisions in favor of acquitting the defendant of the murder charge. The evidence presented in the case included the switch knife and the diagram of the crime scene. Two jurors questioned how the defendant could have used the switch knife to kill his father (Lumet, 1957). They noted that the switch knife was not admissible evidence. A similar incident has happened before in the US. The judge of Arizona State Supreme Court pointed out that the knife presented as evidence was linked to the prejudicial beliefs, hyperventilation, and visceral reactions of the jurors (Grady et al., 2018). A near similar experience was witnessed in the jury room. At first, most of them relied on gut feelings and stereotypical bias, but as the case progressed, they appreciated the cross-examination of the evidence. Although most jury decisions rely on eyewitness statements, the identifications are not always accurate (Dillon et al., 2017). Thus, the court directs the jury to conduct background checks to establish the reliability of the statements. Jurors are encouraged to be skeptical of the identifications that the eyewitnesses present. In the case, Juror #8 assumed this responsibility as he questioned the circumstances that could render the eyewitness’ statements invalid (Lumet, 1957). After explaining the details of the case, other jurors admitted that the decision to charge the defendant had been rushed. Eventually, only Juror #3 supported the sentencing of the defendant (Lumet, 1957). In this case, there was a presumption of innocence, burden of proof, and reasonable doubt. Hence, the decision to convict the defendant was overturned towards the end of the movie.
Overall, the film 12 Angry Men is a depiction of the procedures that jurors when deciding whether a person is guilty or not. In the movie, the juror members elicited emotional responses when discussing the potential outcome of the case. Some of them wanted to satisfy their egos, while others believe that the trial process should be fair. The jurors who were concerned about themselves wished the decision-making process was hastened since they thought that a discussion of the presented evidence was a waste of time. Others demonstrated feelings of hatred and revenge towards the defendant for allegedly killing an older adult. Also, the jurors relied on prejudice when making decisions. These members believed that a particular community is prone to violence, and thus death sentence was the only way to correct their behaviors. They were not concerned with the facts and evidence presented. Nevertheless, the final decision of the jury is based on evidence and facts. The jurors could not leave the room until they ensured that they had addressed any gap in the evidence provided. Although the outcome of the trial was not presented, it was evident that the jury made the right decision.
References
Bergold, A. N., Davis, G., Dumitru, O., Ghani, A., Godsil, R. D., Hetey, R. C., Mitchell, O., et al. (2020). Bias in the law: A definitive look at racial prejudice in the US criminal justice system . Lexington Books.
Dillon, M. K., Jones, A. M., Bergold, A. N., Hui, C. Y., & Penrod, S. D. (2017, January 13). Henderson instructions: Do they enhance evidence evaluation?. Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice , 17 (1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2017.1235964
Grady, R. H., Reiser, L., Garcia, R. J., Koeu, C., & Scurich, N. (2018, March 15). Impact of gruesome photographic evidence on legal decisions: A meta-analysis. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law , 25 (4), 503-521. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2018.1440468
Lumet, S. (Director). (1957). 12 Angry Men . Orion-Nova Productions.
Nunez, N., Estrada-Reynolds, V., Schweitzer, K., & Myers, B. (2016). The impact of emotions on juror judgments and decision-making. In Advances in Psychology and Law (pp. 55-93). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43083-6_3
Weimann-Saks, D., Peleg-Koriat, I., & Halperin, E. (2019, April 5). The effect of malleability beliefs and emotions on legal decision making. Justice System Journal , 40 (1), 21-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2019.1590264
