For anyone who has seen the film Twelve angry Men,(If you haven’t I highly reccomend that you do), I was wondering what you think about the verdict, and what you would do in the same position. My personal view is I’d probably be voting guilty.
Under the law reasonable doubt is not defined to be no doubt. And there was just far to much circumstantial evidence for me.
I’ve seen both the old version and the new version. It’s been quite awhile since I saw it though, but it seems to me that the lone holdout eventually proved to the others that the guy did not do it.
To me reasonable doubt finally raised it’s head when it became apparant that the one reliabe witness wore glasses and she couldn’t have been wearing them at the time.
That’s what nailed for the stockbroker (E.G.Marshall)
The circumstancial evidence in the case was not as good as it appeared to be. The knife was shown not to be unique and in fact rather commonplace and the eyewitness ID was proven to be faulty.
If the ID was thrown out, what could you use to prove that the defendant was at the scene at the time of the murder.
Actually, I acted in a modified version of the play, and I have to say while I don’t quite think he’s innocent, I can’t be sure he’s guilty.
I’m not sure if it’s the same way in the movie, but in the version I did there was emphasis on the fact that most of the jurors were voting guilty because of their own prejudices.
Hi, JamesGrey, and welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board.
The forum for questions such as yours, which do not have a definite answer, is called In My Humble Opinion.
I’ll move the thread there for you.
Henry Fonda shredded all the evidence! Not guilty!
IMHO, though I like the film, the big problem with the original 12AM (I haven’t seen the remake) is that before we even get into the jury room, we see the defendant: this frail, big-eyed, innocent-looking kid. This completely loads the dice so that the audience’s sympathy is with him already. I think it would have been much gutsier to have a tougher-looking, unsympathetic “street” kid portrayed, so we–like the other 11–would have some of our innate prejudices going into the back room. That way, when Fonda pleads for the kid’s case, we’re forced to challenge our assumptions as much as the other jurors do. Still, Fonda’s case is fairly convincing–though I think several key points (the duplicate knife, the nose indentations, timing the walk) are somewhat speculative (if not wholly inadmissable altogether).
On of my fav’s…
The way I understood it: if you feel any reasonable doubt at all, the law says you should not return a guilty verdict. Fonda shook down every individual’s reason(s) for having no doubt at all, one by one. Once everyone realized it was doubtful, they could not, in good conscience, return a guilty verdict.
You Lee J. Cobb-loving bastard! Don’t make me come over there and Fondaize you!
Oboy.
I served on a jury on an attempted murder case (the verdict must be unanimous) where I was the lone dissenter at the beginning (11 to 1 guilty). While the events that unfolded in the Deliberation Room weren’t nearly so dramatic, it was still interesting all the different interactions I had with each juror and eventually the interactions they had with each other. To make a long story short, ultimately, we found him not guilty.
As far as 12AM (which I saw maybe a year later…awesome film), I agreed.
BTW, I served on another trial that started similarly, but, as it was a civil case, it didn’t require a unanimous verdict…I was outvoted.
…no, I’m not a troublemaker just for the sake of being one.
After hearing Hank Fonda’s argument, I would have voted for acquital. But 'twere me, I never would have come up with that argument in the first place. There is a lot of “poetic license” in this film, but if there weren’t, it wouldn’t be as good as it is.
When I first saw it, I was thinking, “Is Fonda this guy’s long lost cousin, or something?” I couldn’t figure out why he was defending him so vehemently, but using the vaguest of arguments (“Isn’t it possible… and Don’t you suppose…”).
But I guess you could read it as someone with a bleeding heart whose arguments turned out to hold water.
P.S. - has anybody seen the TV remake? Does it suck as much as I think it does? The only thing I can remember about it is it stars Tony Danza.
The original is excellent but I thought the remake was pretty bad. I was amused that Jack Lemmon and George C Scott were referring to the “old” guy as old. What are they then?
It’s been a while since I saw it but it seemed like Henry Fonda just made stuff up.
Didn’t they assume that the old woman wore glasses because of the marks on her nose? Did they show that she was nearsighted and not farsighted? Maybe she DID see the kid clearly.
Jack Batty’s right. It was all “suppose this” and “maybe that”.
Maybe after the kid gets freed he goes home and pushes the old man down the stairs and the old woman out her window for testifying against him.
My favorite part of that movie (original- could have cared less about the remake) was the use of the boy’s picture.
When you thought he was guilty at the beginning, the picture looked evil, viscous. Then at the end, when you thought he was innocent, the picture lokked sad, poor, disadvantaged.
But, and correct me if I’m wrong, wasn’t the SAME DAMN PICTURE BOTH TIMES?!? It was our perception that colored how we saw the boy.
Now, THAT rocks…
Did I just say that the picture was “viscous?”
OMG, I meant “vicious.”
Never worn the pre-plastics metal frame glasses, have yeh? Believe me, they leave a very distinctive mark on the sides of the nose.
No I haven’t and thankfully I don’t wear the plastic ones anymore either thanks to Lasik surgery.
Were the marks different depending on whether you were nearsighted or farsighted? That was the point I was trying to make.
Hey I have a ‘this-guy-wear-glasses’ nose that is quite prominent. Even with plastic they leave a small but noticeable indentation at the sides of the bridge.
What picture? I don’t remember that!
OK, never having seen the movie, but from reading the comments herein, I propose this topic for discussion-
12 Angry Men - an example of how justice prevails, or a demonstration of how one strong-willed individual can sway the jury process? Was this in effect a jury of one who convinced the other members to vote his way by browbeating them? If Henry Fonda’s character had been just as surely convinced that the accused person were guilty, what would have happened?