Catching up on Classics (and lots more!) discussion
This topic is about
Twelve Angry Men
Short Story/Novella Collection
>
Twelve Angry Men - January 2023
Thank you for bringing that up Greg. I agree about pulling out the knife being inappropriate. It was also improper to re-create the old man getting out of bed and how long it would have taken him to get to the door. There were other things too. They basically did the public defenders job for him. Those errors kept me from giving it 5 stars, but I still think the overall message of the play a great one and I understand why it was done that way. You couldn't have seen the imbalance with the prosecutor and public defender as well without it.
Sue wrote: "Thank you for bringing that up Greg. I agree about pulling out the knife being inappropriate. It was also improper to re-create the old man getting out of bed and how long it would have taken him t..."Thanks Sue!
I definitely agree with you that the defense lawyer should have done all these things; the defense attorney must have been highly incompetent or unmotivated.
And juror #8 going into the neighborhood to find the knife is for sure investigating, which is illegal for jurors to do, even if the knife had been legal to buy. The reenactments, I'm not sure. That might be unusual, but I don't think it's illegal. Jurors have a right to talk things out in any way with what they're given in court.
Of course, by going into that neighborhood and seeking out the knife himself, he probably prevented an innocent boy from dying. So, I'm glad he did it!
It's just interesting and ironic that the way he makes the legal system work is by doing something that jurors are specfically instructed not to do, something that would result in a mistrial if the judge found out about it.
I guess one of my main takeaways from the book is how vital it is for both parties to have adequate representation in the courtroom and how unfair things can be when one side is vastly more motivated than the other. And of course that can be true in either direction . . . whether with competent prosecutors alongside overworked, discouraged or untalented defense attorneys . . . or with high-priced star defense attorney teams alongside overwhelmed public prosecutors. It's an achilles heel in the American justice system that so much hinges on the quality of the legal representation.
Re Volunteering: On the other hand, you get rid of people like #7 (and probably also #12).
Mod
Implicit bias/attitude/prejudice controls the story. The defense attorney either doesn't see the same truth we know or refuses to see it or assumes no one will call him out on it. He may have been assigned to the defense case.The judge does not call out or comment on the bias.
Most of the jurors are ready to judge the defendant as being guilty. The one thin fragile thread that this whole play rests on is one juror wondering if the young defendant can be declared guilty beyond a shadow of doubt. For the jury to say that the defendant is guilty in this case all members of the jury have to be absolutely absolutely sure. They are not.
The implicit bias/attitude/prejudice was a common enough concept in mid to late 20th century. This is the concept that controls the play of the same time period.
I can see how in the post-WWII era were sane hurt veterans who were sad that they had had to participate in the war, to participate in killing of humans, necessary or unnecessary, found and felt the horror. Maybe those veterans--and there were many--who made a commitment to honor life or question the necessity of dishonoring humans. The initial juror to say he wasn't sure is imo one such vet.
Yes Greg and others are making good points. I just have this habit of looking the perspective of history. It is just one perspective among many. What I hear here is how this play continues to talk to us in the 21st century. Since I like this play, I am glad it remains revelant to us today.
Greg wrote: "Sue wrote: "Thank you for bringing that up Greg. I agree about pulling out the knife being inappropriate. It was also improper to re-create the old man getting out of bed and how long it would have..."I agree that they could have talked about it, but creating the experiment is what wasn't proper. I don't believe a judge would have even let that experiment go on in the court room as evidence. The defense would have to have an expert testify as to the likelihood of the timing.
I agree that the unequal representation is the biggest problem on both ends. If only we could fix that.
Cynda wrote: "Yes Greg and others are making good points. I just have this habit of looking the perspective of history. It is just one perspective among many. What I hear here is how this play continues to talk ..."I agree Cynda. The historical perspective is important and it is also relevant in current times.
Sue wrote: "Cynda wrote: "Yes Greg and others are making good points. I just have this habit of looking the perspective of history. It is just one perspective among many. What I hear here is how this play cont..."Cynda and Sue, I completely agree that racial bias is a hugely important theme in the play as well, especially looking at it historically.
Just finished. It's interesting how it hints near the very end that the one very angry juror had a problem with his son and something in his personal history was what was making him so angry toward the boy. The reveal at the end was pretty moving, I thought. It didn't excuse his behavior, but it helped explain why he was so angry.
I just started this, very interesting! It's like solving a mystery, I liked the 8th juror's argument that when a life's at stake the least they can do is discuss for at least 5 min. The initial aloofness to the case by other jurors portrays recklessness. Most of the jurors seem to be judgemental, the 10th juror clearly hates people from slums. Won't the court screen the jurors to check if they have such biases that influence their verdict? Especially when it's something serious like a murder trial.
Procedures to avoid that problem are in place, but may not be followed: and I don’t know what they were when the play was written, and it does not seem to be tied to any particular place.In my one experience with a murder case, potential jurors were given long questionnaires, which could be studied by the opposing attorneys before verbal questions. Some people were challenged “for cause,” and in some cases the presiding judge dismissed them before a lawyer could get around to it.
(In a separate drunk driving case, one man was removed by the judge because he obviously had been drinking during an extra-long lunch, and a bailiff was assigned to make sure he didn’t try to drive home.)
This in addition to a limited number of peremptory challenges by both sides.
Unfortunately, people with a strong motive to get on a jury are often willing to lie about it. And some people just don’t recognise their own biases as being such.
Ian wrote: "Procedures to avoid that problem are in place, but may not be followed: and I don’t know what they were when the play was written, and it does not seem to be tied to any particular place.....
Unfortunately, people with a strong motive to get on a jury are often willing to lie about it. And some people just don’t recognise their own biases as being such."
Yeah, that makes sense.
I loved this short story. The title makes perfect sense.
Finished it today and thought it was a very good play. Of course it´s old-fashioned with only men in the jury, but I liked the different types.In Austria you can be ordered into a jury any time between a certain age. There are only exceptions for people with certain jobs or the like, earlier on also for women. There are two different types: the ones deciding by themselves, the others deciding as lay judges together with a professional judge. I worked in the last function last year, but was once sent home, because there were too many jurors, the second time I was a substitute, so I heard the trial but couldn´t decide. I heard though that it usually worked the way that the professional judge suggested a verdict, and the lay judges agreed to it. We could also ask questions. Both trials were about drug dealing, often having been dragging on for years till the defender made the accused person confess. We were sent a manuscript about our tasks, how a trial worked and that we were obliged to not let our prejudices influence us.
What came to my mind considering the play and my experience was that people (here both not Austrian born, one even with a translator) were often represented by an appointed lawyer who had no big interest in his client. Though I never decided, it was interesting to participate in a trial and so exert a voluntary work and at the same time a duty for your country which was glad to involve lay people into jurisdiction.
Once the US Supreme Court ruled that everyone was entitled to representation at a criminal trial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_...) problems with having judges appoint attorneys began to be obvious. It might be at random, without regard to competence or experience with criminal trials, Or because the judge liked / disliked someone who would be grateful/resentful to have a case.The professional Public Defender system (see the article), set up in parallel to the prosecution, fills in the gap in some jurisdictions.
This has some problems too, as with too many novice lawyers on the staff, and caseloads that are too large, and lack of adequate funding. Retaining lawyers once they have considerable experience is also a problem, hence the novices.
But I know two career public defenders here in Los Angeles, both very hardworking and competent, and I tend to judge by that.
One of them told me that the LA Police Department is often too lazy to make a good case.
I suspect that makes it easy to get some defendants acquitted without regards to actual guilt. But the defense attorneys have an ethical obligation to defend the accused effectively, whatever they believe about a case at hand.
Mod
Twelve jurors is a lot of people, actually. I've never considered this before reading this play and following this discussion because it is so normalized in US culture. Getting 12 people to agree on anything is a challenge. I guess to some degree having so many jurors makes it possible for someone like juror 8 to make a difference.
Mod
Sara wrote: "It sounds to me like it is an imperfect system in all our countries,..."I agree. All countries have innocents being judged guilty. The better countries/systems are those that care about this fact at all.
Sara wrote: "It sounds to me like it is an imperfect system in all our countries, but that we have all tried to set up something that will work well if used as intended. It is never simple when you involve peop..."I agree, with this and also with what you and John Dishwasher say about 12 jurors being the right number. As long as there's enough for one person to make a difference, we have hope.
What was interesting in my jury experience was when we first sat down around the table, we were in two camps: decided and undecided. As we talked, the details of our individual positions came out more, and by the end you could tell there were actually 12 very different viewpoints to be considered. Kind of like this story, actually!
Funny how when the details come out, we're not really in camps after all--just individuals.
Mod
I find that so heartening, Kathleen! People stand the best chance of justice when each person is thinking it through.
I have never served on a jury but listening to this story, one can only imagine how difficult it would be to not have a "hung" jury. Also, the more things change in society, the more they stay the same. Prejudice and bias played a part in this play and is still prevalent today. I thought that listening to the 12 varied voices in the play kept me engaged and thoughtful.
Mod
I so enjoyed reading this book and I've loved reading all the comments posted. Like many of you I listened to the LA Theater Works version. It just happened to be the copy the library had, but as I listened I suddenly realized "Hey! That's Quark!" and then I looked up all the actors and saw what a talented bunch it was. It would've been fun to see that live.
I'm also surprised how many of us have served on juries. I'm the only person I know who has actually served on a jury. None of the people I know called to jury duty were ever even called to jury selection.
Many people told me I'd never be called to serve on a jury because I was a teacher. They were all wrong! ;D The case was about a man accused of throwing a Molotov cocktail into a home. The trial went on for one day and then we deliberated for 1.5 days. Interestingly, our jury was a bit opposite from the book.
On our first vote there were three for guilty. We went back and forth over the evidence. It turned out that everyone thought he was guilty but weren't sure the evidence proved it "beyond a reasonable doubt." We even went back out to the judge and asked him to explain it to us legally. Then we went through all the evidence again. We ended up with a guilty verdict.
No one in my jury was angry or invested in a certain verdict. I do feel everyone tried to be logical and fair, at least as far as humans can be with all their biases. As the book so aptly highlights.
In California it used to be the case that teachers were either automatically exempt from jury duty or could ask to be excused (I don’t recall which), because taking them out of the classroom disrupted their students’ education. This may have been true elsewhere, leaving a lot of people with the impression that teachers don’t serve as jurors.
In Texas too. I got out of being required to serve as juror the years I was teaching. I also got out of serving on jury my years as a mother of young child.
I just retired as a teacher and we could have one excuse from being a juror. So, it could be an interruption in teaching or something else. However, we have had teachers and admin out for being on a jury.
The jury exemptions list in California used to be quite long. Employment in what were deemed critical jobs was a big factor. Harbor pilots is one job category that sticks out in my memory. Their absence might cause all sorts if shipping disruptions , with knock-on impacts on the state’ economy, while keeping them out of the jury pool was not a significant loss.If I recall correctly, there was some overlap with other “critical” occupations that were draft exempt, so my memories are from back in the 1970s.
And some very large corporations began paying the full salaries of employees called up for jury duty, so financial hardship ceased to be a valid cause of exemption for a whole lot of people.
Ian, I have definitely noticed that it has gotten much harder to get exemptions over time where I live. Nowadays, the judges at the court near me can get pretty cranky at excuses. There was a woman at a former jury service who asked to be excused to take care of her sick husband and the judge was far less compassionate than I would have liked. And the judge also threatened a couple other potential jurors with "contempt of court" charges for deliberately answering questions in such a way that they would get kicked off the jury.
I think I would rather tell jokes in the airport security line than trying to put one over on one of these judges. Their wits and tempers are both quite sharp!
It's easy to have one's service delayed but nearly impossible to get excused.
Mod
Except for cases where bias would be an issue, I tend to frown on the idea of any jury exemptions. If I were ever to be on trial for something, I would want a true jury of my peers - people my age with my life experiences, people who vote, people who work a professional job, people who are mothers and have sick family members, people who think the way I think. They should be compensated appropriately for the hardship that jury duty might cause them (childcare, missing work, care of sick family, etc.) either by the courts or by their job. But I would want people like that on my jury, not just people who couldn’t “get out” of jury duty. As a member of a community, I feel it is a duty to be available to deliberate the lives and potential punishments of others who live within that community. With that being said, no court would ever choose me for a death penalty case because of my bias, and that’s fine. Biases should be cause for potential exclusion. Or maybe not, depending on your beliefs. Still, the majority of cases where juries are needed are not death penalty cases. And I would want as many people as possible who are similar to me to be the ones evaluating my case.
It has been several years since I was called for jury duty, but I would assume that you are right: the long list of exemptions I mentioned has been pared down. In fact, I know it was: I just don't know what remains. It may have been trimmed again in the years since.In my prior experience, judges were usually willing to dismiss people with serious chronic illnesses that might cause delays in a trial. One got very testy with people he thought had concealed health problems that could interrupt the proceedings. The civil case already had been delayed a long time, and we potential jurors spent a whole lot of time back in the jury pool while motions were being argued in our absence. On top of which there was a shortage of courtrooms....
Sara wrote: "I got an interesting thing in the mail yesterday. It was a notice from my county to tell me that if I would like to be excused from jury duty permanently I need to fill out the form they enclosed. ..."Oh yes Sara, here too there is an exemption for age and that one is easy to use. You do not even have to go to the courthouse for that one. At age 70 and up in California, it is still quite easy to be excused. Below that in age though it's pretty tough.
Though it makes sense what you say about some conditions causing unwelcome delays Ian. Soon after the stroke when Ron was almost completely disabled, they wanted him wheeled in there somehow. Though that was for the jury selection day; it might have been much easier to get him out of being actually selected given his obvious condition. Being in his early 50s, he couldn't use the age based exemption.
Mod
I am sorry Sara. I wondered. I did not know. May all the resources you need be made available to you.
Sara wrote: "I am sole caretaker to my husband who is in home hospice care. I could not serve at this time. There are legitimate reasons why some people cannot serve on a jury, and no amount of compensation wou..."Yes, your situations are different than “I have arthritis in my elbow” or “I have two dogs and a child.” My point was that people will try anything to get out of serving on a jury, and I hate that.
Finding a jury of one's peers is difficult. I remember the short story A Jury Of Her Peers by Susan Glaspell.
I was once called to jury duty where were asked to judge a man in his earliest 20s who had been intimate with a older teenager. I could not be impartial as I saw two young adults doing what young adults do. This is a situation for families, not public courtroom drama and public expense. . . . Such a emotionally charged room that was. The lawyers' eyes were showing some frustration. Their shoulders did too when they released us as a group of potentials
I would like to serve on a jury. I thought now I have time and life experience. My hope was that I might get strong enough to sit for 8 hours while not have any interruptive body situation or respiratory outbreak happen. When I had to show my medical documentation a third time to a judge, I gave up. I signed forms in courthouse so that I will not be called again. It is a life experience I would like to have. (Note I did not use the perfect past tense. I still have a flicker of hope/desire.)
Mod
I've only gotten through the first half of the comments, but here are some contributions to the discussion. @Greg -- I had the same confusion when I read that #8 had gone to the neighborhood and gotten a duplicate knife.
@Greg and Sarah -- Given that the movie was released in 1957 (I presume with the same reenactments and knife purchase) I applaud the jurors for wanting to reenact the events. They were trying to scientifically verify testimony. 21st century, there would be an electronic recreation of the events. Scientists would measure how quickly the "old man" could walk, that kind of thing.
One thing that bothered me is that if the kid had the presence of mind to calmly wipe fingerprints from the knife and door knobs, why wasn't he also calm enough to walk (vs run) down the stairs? Also, why didn't he just take the knife with him?!
I have just gone through my friends' reviews of the plays. I found the quotes many chose to be telling about the play. I want to record them all or like them all in GR Quotes.
Cheryl Carroll wrote: "I've only gotten through the first half of the comments, but here are some contributions to the discussion. @Greg -- I had the same confusion when I read that #8 had gone to the neighborhood and ..."
That's a good point Cheryl about reenactments being much easier today with newer technologies! It's so true that it helps to keep the time frame in mind!
Though of course if the defense attorney is incompetent, disinterested, or overwhelmed with other cases, they might still fail to present or challenge a lot of important evidence . . . .
I recently watched a free lecture on Great Courses called Understanding Cognitive Biases: Why we think differently in Groups in which the lecturer cited Twelve Angry Men as an excellent example of group cognitive bias. Notice at the beginning vote how several hands went up immediately and then more went up after a brief pause. These are people who hadn't really made up their minds but didn't want to be considered an outsider.
Greg wrote: "Of course, by going into that neighborhood and seeking out the knife himself, he probably prevented an innocent boy from dying. So, I'm glad he did it!.."Actually, the play never answered the question as to the defendant's guilt or innocence. It was all about the jurors.
Greg wrote: "Ian, I have definitely noticed that it has gotten much harder to get exemptions over time where I live. ..."Whenever I'm called I bring with me a copy of In Spite of Innocence. I figured that if the case turns out to be one I don't want to be involved with I would take it out and start reading it and no prosecutor alive would let me on the jury. The opportunity to try it has never arisen, though.
Tom wrote: "Greg wrote: "Of course, by going into that neighborhood and seeking out the knife himself, he probably prevented an innocent boy from dying. So, I'm glad he did it!.."Actually, the play never ans..."
Absolutely Tom! It doesn't answer conclusively. But it does seem that there are a lot of problems with the story the prosecution is telling. That's why I said "probably." I guess I could say "possibly" instead. But the problems in the prosecution's case seem pretty serious.
Much like in a real courtroom, the jury can never really know any more than what they are presented (or in this case, plus a little bit of self-investigation).
Catching up on Classics (and lots more!)
Books mentioned in this topic
Twelve Angry Men (other topics)In Spite of Innocence (other topics)
Twelve Angry Men (other topics)
A Jury of Her Peers (other topics)
Twelve Angry Men (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Susan Glaspell (other topics)Reginald Rose (other topics)
Each lawyer is allowed to dismiss a certain number of potential jurors from a case. Selecting a jury for a case is a procedure that can take a half day or longer as each lawyer (defense and prosecution) asks questions of jurors to see if they have any improper involvement with the people involved in the case, if they have any improper bias, or if they lack the ability to comprehend the details of a case.
Because many potential jurors can be removed, they always call up many extra jurors on a day so they have enough jurors to cover the maximum number of jurors that can be removed during the selection process.