The problems and breaks in the criminal justice
Only $13.90 / page
The film 12 Irritated Men is attempting to reveal the errors and gaps in the legal justice program. The film focuses on doze men who all have different personas that affect the case and the final verdict. The film details on racism in the jury, grudges among families, and that the court could possibly be “bought out”, but it will all of this within a fun and amusing way.
The initial problem film production company shows is usually racism. With this film one of the most prominent racism comes from juror #10. From the beginning of the film juror #10 is attempting to see who may be against him and who is with him. He says multiple times, “who stands where” which lets us know that he can more of a hateful person. When he is asked about why he thinks the boy he can sending to die is usually guilty, this individual has a single response every time. He claims “he is usually one of them, inch which all of us interpret that the defendant is not light and this is why he is voting guilt ridden or mainly why. Later in the film he starts to rage at the other jurors about the boy becoming guilty, mainly because again “he is certainly one of them” and they are generally killers. The other jurors decide they had enough with him and just walk from your table, which will shows juror #10 that he is the strange man out with his beliefs. This is one moment in the film where that makes juror #10 recognize that his viewpoints are diminishing the case. This shows all of us, the audience, just how with just one racist juror can significantly affect the end result in a trek. If he didn’t alter his mind the outcome of the case could have been different.
Grudges are also a prominent topic in this film. This characteristic is most master in Juror #3, who also never really has already established any evidence of why the boy is guilty aside from the details that Juror #4 have been discussing with the other jurors throughout the film. Juror #3 lightly shows us regarding his kid who ran away from home initially of the film, but it appears insignificant during the time. Towards the end of the film juror #3 goes off on a madman spree, yelling about how precisely the boy has to be responsible. He then breaks and looks for his wallet where a photo of his son can be and starts to cry. Ultimately he improvements his vote from guilty to not accountable. What we infer from this is that he was having a grudge against the accused because his son went away, not because the son was guilt ridden. He views his child in the accused and is currently taking it out on him. This case could happen how other about. Imagine juror #3 (the one who a new grudge) had a grudge in the dad, after that he would become more inclined to vote in support of the accused. These grudges could cost someone their very own life if they happen to be not tamed.
The amount of money might be the greatest thing to affect the trail. In the film one continual discussion is the reason why the defendant’s lawyer would not bring numerous key points up. This message surfaces a whole lot in the film while the jurors are speaking about the case. All their answer is really because the attorney did not proper care because he was being paid so very little. The court talks to the other person about how it had been an unjust fight right from the start, because the prosecution’s lawyer was fully involved and the defendant’s was not. This kind of shows us how much money can affect the outcome of any circumstance no matter how big or small. If the defendant would have acquired more helpful his personal lawyer, he may not of ever had the 11 to 1 vote accountable and juror #8 more than likely have had to become a “knight in shining battle suits. “