12 Angry Men
The messenger service man had an ego problem. When he was discussing everything in the room, he was very stubborn. He wouldn’t change his views until at the end when everyone was against him. He had to wait till he said all of the facts out loud; this is the point when finally he changed his mind. It took him to look at a picture to find out that he was messed up. He had to change his view because he finally understood all the wrong he did throughout the whole process. He thought that sons are evil towards their father. The thing that sticks out is how he treats everyone who switched side. He was very ardent in his views and wouldn’t be persuaded easily. This man definitely had problems with the way he used his voice. He was very trusting of all the things that happened in the Courtroom. And had a bias about the people in the slums and how bad they are. He used the words of the stockbroker to prove that he was right. Didn’t always think before he spoke.
The stockbroker is a man who obviously analyzes everything. He took his time to sift through everything given in court. Always had something to say, he had lot of things to worry about, and still could concentrate on the verdict. The first thing we learn about him is when he opens the newspaper to find out about the stocks. He may have been preoccupied about the stocks and the stock market, while he wasn’t talking in the room. He finally realized that there was enough reasonable doubt that he changed his verdict to not guilty. He knew about how the government works and how they needed to come to a conclusion. With the option of a hung jury, everyone in the room knew the kid wouldn’t be as lucky with a different jury. He was mostly against Henry Fonda, and his case about reasonable doubt. Fonda asked him about looking back to see if he could remember 3 days before and it was hard for a man such as him to recall the facts.
The old man is wise. He listened to both sides, but was at first unsure about which side to pick. He barley raised his hand for the first vote. He went with the flow at first, but after hearing that Henry Fonda stood up to everyone he went with the fact that reasonable doubt could exist. He didn’t want to send an innocent man to die without thinking about it first. When Fonda pulled apart the woman’s testimony he changed his views to not guilty. The woman who said the murder happened through the train, she had glasses and wouldn’t have slept with them on. This didn’t fit together in his mind; the woman couldn’t have seen it happen. Also, he was old, just as the man who testified in the court was. He could relate to how fast he moved to get up from his bed to get to the door to see the murderer come out. He already could tell that with the little facts pulled out by Fonda that this whole thing couldn’t have happened. He was talked down to almost the whole time as he was thought to be useless, but he proved some big points. He even brought up the point that that the broker was scratching his nose cause of the glasses mark. He noticed even the smallest of things. He had perfect vision and I feel like he was the perfect juror.
The responsibility to serve on a jury is such an important thing because we have the adversary system in the United States to make fairness as close as we can think of. Since the watchmaker was a new immigrant he could really tell that our system was good. Having everyone thinking differently our system gets a variety of different views in the room. The nicest thing about the adversary system is that the jury isn’t bias, for the most part. Not knowing the defendant gives everyone a fair way of giving his or her opinions without a preset bias. In 12 angry men, the foreman took charge of the whole discussion, giving out ideas. He was one who worked hand in hand with this system agreeing with what their duty was. Making the decision was only helped through the foreman, all of the men worked together eventually.
In my opinion, reasonable doubt is something that is in most any case. If everything isn’t direct evidence, I feel like there could be reasonable doubt. The likely hood of something not actually being there is present. It is important to put the reasonable doubt into the whole process because it lets people look at everything. Getting a complete view of what happened is key, so without considering the reasonable doubt you cannot get the whole picture of what happened. An example is when the men all jumped to a conclusion without considering the chance of there being reasonable doubt. The only one who considered this was Fonda, the one who helped the defendant. Fonda was the smart one who didn’t want to send the man to death for something that might not of actually happened. Therefore the reasonable doubt was shown to everyone because he stood up to the rest. He was thinking of the verdict and not what he had to do later. Reasonable doubt gets over looked if you go with just the strait case. The defendant may have had a pro bono lawyer, someone who didn’t really care all that much. And not given the defendant a real fair trial. This happened in the movie and Fonda was a better defense lawyer, bringing up new points that may have recently been overlooked.