Workings of The Jury System in The Film "Twelve Angry Men"

Introduction

A jury system corresponds to a panel of twelve people, randomly selected, who sits in the courtroom, in either civil or criminal cases, to make decisions based on a set of facts presented to them. The twelve Jurors know nothing about the case and are not related to it in any way. As presented by the United States District Court, jurors are asked to follow a certain conduct during the trial. Jurors in the courtroom must pay close attention to testimonies, have to be open-minded, not let their prejudices dictate their verdicts, and must deliver a verdict based on their best judgment to conduct a fair trial (United States District Court, n.d.). In 12 Angry Men, before jurors retire to deliberate, the Judge reminds jurors of their duty to attentively and sincerely deliberate. Nevertheless, several actions and thoughts show that the deliberation is not proceeding as it should, and jurors are neglecting their responsibilities. First, before jurors take a seat, some of them are talking to each other regarding the trial while it is not permitted.

Juror Conduct in "Twelve Angry Men"

In fact, Juror 3 and Juror 7 share with Juror 2 and Juror 10 respectively their opinion about the trial. While Juror 3 complains about the fact that the trial lasted six days for nothing, which may imply that Juror 3 has not listened carefully to the trial, Juror 7 qualifies the statement of the suspect as false and Juror 10 agrees with him by implying that they are dealing with a liar. The United States District Court specifies that jurors should not debate the case among themselves before deliberation (United States District Court, n.d.). Jurors may influence each other, which could lead one of them not to pronounce his verdict based on his best judgment, as required by the Court. Furthermore, the United States District Court clearly states that individual jurors are forbidden to visit the “scene of an accident or of any event in the case.” However, Juror 8, the night before the deliberation, bought a knife similar to the one used to kill the victim, in a shop close to the crime scene. Juror 8 may not have visited the crime scene, but he may have bought the knife at the same shop where the suspect bought his, which may have influenced his opinion. Juror 8 is not using the facts given to him but is running his own research. Jurors are not allowed to draw conclusions from a “private source of information” (United States District Court, n.d.).

Prejudices and the Jury System

Throughout the trial, jurors show how their judgments are based solely on prejudices because the suspect comes from a poor neighborhood and is not American. From the perspective of the jurors in 12 Angry Men, we may conclude that the workings of the jury system may not always be respected and jurors may not always obey the law and instructions given to them. 12 Angry Men may have revealed a flaw in the jury system. Charles A. Thatcher, in his article published in The North American Review, exposed this possible failure of the jury system (Thatcher, 1954). As Mr. Thatcher explains, twelve men are randomly selected, and all of them come from different backgrounds with different stories, which influence their opinions. Mr. Thatcher also explains that jurors may not be attentive while seated in the courtroom because they only think about their own businesses outside of court; time may be counted for some of them. This can be seen in the movie 12 Angry Men when Juror 7 claims that he wants to leave the jury room early because he has a comedy to watch; he only acts in his own interest. Finally, jurors may not be used to this experience, as Juror 5 did not know that doors are locked when the jury deliberates; jurors may be intimidated and sometimes wonder where they are. Because of all these reasons, it is difficult to determine if their morals allow them to intelligently focus, determine the truth or falsehood of testimonies, identify the facts, and make impartial decisions.

The Case of Philadelphia

In Philadelphia, rival attorneys blame Andrew Beckett for his lack of performance on the job and his constant lies to his employers regarding his disease. Charles Wheeler, one of his employers, takes the stand to claim that Andrew Beckett was a promising lawyer, but with time they realized that Beckett’s work was not what they had expected from him, which convinced them to fire him. Belinda Conine, the rival attorney, claims that Beckett’s employers did not know about his illness before firing him. Also, she claims that Andrew Beckett brought his previous employers to justice because Beckett wants someone to pay for his irresponsible actions that led him to contract the virus. In order to demonstrate her accusations, Belinda Conine is ready to make Beckett confess that he had an intimate relationship with an unknown individual. Other witnesses took the stand, such as Mr. Laid. Mr. Laid runs a company Beckett represented in a lawsuit years ago. When Beckett’s attorney approached him to take the stand, Mr. Laid was greatly satisfied with Beckett’s work, but Mr. Laid changed his speech during the trial and finally diminished Beckett’s work. Is the Wyant Wheeler Firm Law behind this sudden change of speech? However, some witnesses, such as Anthea or Maria, testify to assure that Wyant Wheeler Law Firm is a discriminatory place. Also, Beckett recalled a moment with his employers when they were making fun of gay people.

The Verdict

Finally, rival attorneys claim that they were not aware of Beckett’s disease or sexual orientation, and solely his careless attitude at work led them to fire him, citing how Beckett lost the complaint for an important case. Beckett vocalizes that his employers deliberately removed this complaint from his desk and computer; they used this action to hide the real reason that pushed them to fire him. We can see here that none of the parties have real facts that could prove the guilt of one or the other. Judgments are solely based on statements from witnesses. Rival attorneys may use Beckett’s private life to indict him, but this cannot be used as a tangible fact; it is only suspicions. After deliberation, jurors awarded Beckett no or little amount of money for loss of benefits and damages related to humiliation and a four million award for punitive damages. By not awarding Beckett for damages related to mental humiliation, jurors believed that Beckett has not received any kind of embarrassment that may have affected him psychologically. Jurors do not esteem that being suddenly fired for questionable reasons when you suffer a disease may be a kind of humiliation affecting someone’s mental state. Nevertheless, a four million award for punitive damages shows that jurors agree on the misconduct of the Law Firm.

Conclusion

To conclude, jurors may not realize and value the opportunity and responsibility they have to judge someone’s life. The viability of jury systems may be questioned. As we could observe from the movies, jurors may be incompetent. Jurors may not understand instructions from the judge or not clearly recall and understand facts. Therefore, the quality and honesty of verdicts taken by jurors can be questioned. Ellen Chilton and Patricia Henley, from the Public Law Research Institute, suggested that the jury system could be improved. As explained in their research, some changes could occur to improve jury trials. They suggest that jurors should be able to question witnesses during the trial, discuss the facts when they are presented to them instead of waiting for the end of the trial, and the language of jury instructions should be simplified so it could be easier for jurors to understand them (Chilton & Henley, 1999). It can finally be noted that the jury may be aware of this situation, as we can see in the Pena-Rodriguez v Colorado case. This case was the first one to question jurors’ statements made in the jury room. Because jurors made racist statements during deliberation, the court held that the trial court may impeach the verdict (Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 2017).