Due Process in the Film “ Twelve Angry Men ”
The concept of Due Process refers to a set of procedures that are aimed at ensuring that people are treated fairly in general by the government and specifically by the criminal justice system, mostly the courts of law (Mank, 2018). It is founded on the basis that an individual should not be deprived of life, property, and liberty without the relevant and appropriate legal safeguards and procedures. It entails the right to notice, the opportunity to be heard in a court of law, and the possible protection from a capricious or unreasonable result. The due process requires more protection in a court case that often surpasses the administrative procedures. It is not standards but is flexible, depending on the seriousness of the case. For instance, the due process in a criminal case tends to be more stringent compared to the one applied in civil cases. The objective of the due process is to ensure fairness in the dispensation of justice.
In the past, particularly in England where the concept of the law and formal trials began, juries were chosen from among the people who understood the customs of the society and the locale in question. The modern jury dates from the past English practices where the judges instructed a given group of individuals on the provisions of the Common Law (Mank, 2018). The judges specifically restricted the juries to find facts from the evidence adduced during trial. Under the constitution of the U.S., an individual is entitled to a jury of his or her peers. Such should not be misconstrued to mean that the jurors must come from one’s cultural, racial, or ethnic background. It is worth noting that no particular race or ethnic group should be excluded from the selection of the jury.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Twelve Angry Men emphasizes the significance of the due process while simultaneously highlighting the presence of intimidation and hostility within the group setting. The film tells the story of a government‘s loss of power and legitimacy because it does not act fairly in the interest of justice and adhere to the due process. The apparent lack of conformity to the provisions of the law and the due process makes the government lose loyalty. It highlights the benefits that comet with thinking independently and not following the masses or the majority. Towards this end, the films tell a troy of a man unanimously convicted by a group of jurors but who in the end turns out to be innocent (Lash, 2017). It is only the 8th juror that determined that the individual on trial was not guilty and used the opportunity to convince the other jurors and to open their minds on the possibility of the person being innocent.
The authors of the constitution understood the possibility of trumped up charges and unfounded criminal allegations aimed at the elimination of supposed enemies and the inclination of judges towards the voices of people positions of authority. The film highlights the central significance of the right to a fair hearing as provided for in Article III of the Constitution. Additionally, the film delves into the importance of various Amendments that include V, VI, and XIV. The film focuses on the right to fail trial and the related constitutional provisions, for instance, the presumption that an individual is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. More significantly, the film focuses on the of the jury system as a tool that defines political institutions that are the foundations of democratic governance.
The film educates the citizens on the legal process and the law. It hence helps them in the understanding of their duties and responsibilities in the best case, thereby improving their deliberations as citizens. Specifically, the film is about a 12-men jury that discusses or deliberates on the possible verdict of a boy that is accused of stabbing and subsequently killing his father. During the discussions, the jurors weigh in on the credibility of the evidence adduced and the primary witness. As the discussion on the innocence or guilt of the young defendant progresses, a formidable number of the jurors change their mind and hence their votes as they become gradually persuaded that the boy is innocent of the crime thereby casting reasonable doubt on the defendant’s supposed guilt.
The due process of the law, therefore, refers to the process of following the law based on the interpretation of an unbiased jury, as supported by the provisions of the constitution (Lash, 2017). The aim of the jury selection if to come up with a fair trial that is void of bias of any kind to ensure that the defendant and the plaintiff get justice as provided for in the constitution, and not based on a person’s thinking or inclination. When the jury commences analyzing the facts of a particular case, the application of at least twelve minds to a case constitutes a rigorous process aimed at ensuring comprehensive and justifiable decision (Lash, 2017). In most cases, lawyers who have worked on a case for years may miss certain facts in a case. For instance, in the film Twelve Angry Men most of the jurors missed out on the facts of the case, but made an about-turn only after being convinced by the 8th juror. It means that the defendant would easily be convicted for a crime that he did not commit. Even to date in the United States and around the world, the conviction of innocent people is still a persistent problem.
Gideon’s Trumpet (1963)
Gideon was charged with breakage and subsequent entry to commit felony or murder or a misdemeanour under the Florida law. At the trial, Gideon appeared without an attorney, meaning that he wanted to represent himself. At the court, he asked the judge to appoint him a counsel since he could not raise the money required to pay an attorney. The judge denied the request since the law only permitted the judge to appoint a counsel to poor citizens charged with capital offences. It is worth noting that Gideon represented himself well at the trial. He followed all the process required by law. For instance, he made an impressive opening statement, examined the witnesses, presented his witnesses, made compelling arguments to prove his innocence, and declined to testify. Despite the spirited legal battle, Gideon was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison.
A previous decision by a different court in the case of Betts V. Brady (1942) had held that refusal to appoint counsel for an individual charged with a capital offence does not necessarily violate the Due Process Clause as provided for in the 14th Amendment (Moskowitz, 2019). The court accorded Gideon’s petition a writ of certiorari, which implies that it agreed to hear the case and review the facts to determine if Betts V. Brady (1942) was applicable or should be reconsidered under the circumstances. It is evident that there was an error in Betts V. Brady (1942) and that is why the court was able to reverse it.
The entitlement to counsel is a fundamental right, as provided for in the Sixth Amendment. The benefit to an attorney or a counsel is a fundamental right that the defendant should be accorded since it forms the foundation of the Due Process of the law since it is essential to a fair trial. Such is consistent with the Due Process Clause as spelt in the Fourteenth Amendment. Any individual that is before the court as lacks the financial means should, therefore, be provided with a counsel since it is one of the fundamental provisions of the Due Process Clause. Such is important because it ensures the impartial trial before a court or a tribunal, and further ensures that the defendant stands an equal chance before the law. It is, therefore, improper for the accused to face trial or his or her accusers without the input of a lawyer. Such goes against the provisions of the Due Process Clause. The presence of an attorney marks the commencement of a fair process for the defendant.
Writ of habeas corpus was certainly a viable request in Gideon’s Case. Habeas Corpus requires the individual or the body of the accused to be brought to court, especially in a case where there is a possibility that the person might have been wrongly convicted or imprisoned (Mead et al., 2020). The fact that the judge denied Gideon the right to a counsel, even after proving that he did not have the financial means to afford an attorney, means that he was not given a fair hearing as required by the Fourteenth Amendment or the Due process of the law. Denying one the right to counsel constitutes a fundamental violation of their right to fair hearing and justice. Therefore, Gideon’s detention and subsequent imprisonment were unlawful, meaning that there was justifiable ground to order the prison official to bring Gideon to court to determine the legality of the detention. The writ of habeas corpus is justified under the circumstances.
References
Lash, K. T. (2017). Enforcing the Rights of Due Process: The Original Relationship between the Fourteenth Amendment and the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Geo. LJ , 106 , 1389.
Mank, B. C. (2018). Does the Evolving Concept of Due Process in Obergefell Justify Judicial Regulation of Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change: Juliana v. United States? UCDL Rev. , 52 , 855.
Mead, J., Carey, D. J., Vander Laan, M. A., Levenson, F., & Singleton, D. (2020). Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Injunctive, and Declaratory Relief-Class Action . Retrieved from https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/fac_briefs/19/
Moskowitz, D. B. (2019). Trumpeting Change: Gideon v. Wainwright 372 Us 355, 1963 Right To Counsel. American History , 53 (6), 22-24.
