Twelve Angry Men is an American dramatic film about 12 indiscriminate men who get selected to become a jury, to decide the faith of an 18-year old Puerto Rican boy, who is the defendant on trial for the alleged murder of his father. All jurors believe that the boy is Guilty, until jury #8 votes not guilty leaving the men to argue with the juror #8 to try to modify his decision until he presents the group with the same kind of knife that was presented in the trail, this act then leaves the men to question their own decisions on the case and whether or not the boys guilty or not guilty.
In this film, the jury is tested based on reasonable doubt, personal antipathies and the evidence that was speculated throughout the case leading them to question not only their morals and values but others as well.
The Adversary System in the Legal system is used to distribute common laws in countries. The Adversary System is when a case is argued by two opposing panels who have the primary responsibility for finding and presenting facts. This system is a very important procedure in the legal world because it advocates an impartial person or group of people, typically begin a jury or a judge who is deciding the truth of the case that is begin presented through facts and evidence given. In the Australian legal system, a trial by jury referees to the unanimous vote that the jurors decide whether the defendant is either guilty or not guilty. This method is used in the legal system as a way of determining the outcome of an issue, no matter if it may be civil or presuming one guilty or not guilty. Jurors are expected to be representative of the general community and to make decisions that reflect broad community values. They are under the direction of a professional judge.
For all legal systems, there is always a debate questioning whether or not a jury system needs to be in place for either civil cases or criminal cases these debates usually happen to see whether or not the jury is needed in the legal system apposing for arguments in favor of and against juries. In the film, there were a lot of scenes suggesting why the legal system shouldn’t have a jury-imposed trail in this there were also a lot of reasons why we should have a jury- imposed trail enforced in the legal system. in the opening scene of the movie, all jurors are each selected randomly and are then presumed to decide whether or not the defendant is either guilty or not guilty.
This was a very important part of the film and the way that the legal system demonstrates an immense advantage of how the jury system works. because none of the men knew each other or the perpetrator the vote for the case wasn’t taken from a biased decision, which then helped the decision begin made come from facts and evidence which inevitably helped the boy on trial since the verdict is from a neutral voice.
Another example that demonstrates why juries in the legal system are important was each juror specifically juror #8 having open conversations debating why he believed the perpetrator wasn’t guilty which then sparked a seed of beyond reasonable doubt into other jurors’ minds. This scene is very important to the jury system.
However, in the scene there creates immense amounts of disadvantages to the jury system, If one person decides that a charged defendant is guilty or innocent, then they have the power to sway the entire trial. That means someone not convinced of a person’s guilt can keep someone from going to prison. It also gives a juror the power to prevent a guilty individual from going to jail because they can “hang” the jury. because the jury system is made up of normal people they’re emotions tend to funksway the way one approaches facts and evidence are given.
Another issue that was given in a jury system, was that juror has their own biases, affecting their decision-making by bringing them into the jury’s decision. This act can be seen in the film when juror #7 is in a lot of angst due to importance of him watching a football game rather than determining the possibility that an 18-year old who’s on trial for murder may be innocent, he is then asked why he believes that the defendant is guilty or not guilty seen as he keeps switching answers so that the verdict is made. Rather than listening and considering all the evidence and working with the other jury members to reach a verdict, he continues to priorities the importance of his game.
Although it is human nature to place rather unimportant things to a high stature. In the jury system, it is reasonably risky for humans’ priorities these things especially in cases like this because then it affects not only the defendant but also on how the legal system works.