What is the jury? For me, a student who did not live in the United States, jury was very foreign. In my opinion, whether a person commits a crime or not is a matter for the courts, judges and police to decide, and has nothing to do with normal people. Even though we are free to make judgments about the case, the final outcome is certainly none of our business. However, the exists of jury reversed my thinking.
“A jury of ‘one’s peers’ is composed of individuals from the community-at-large who are selected at random from voter Registration and Enumeration lists and are plaintiff to appear for jury duty.”
(Gruman, Schneider, & Coutts, 2017, p.306).
The literal definition does not help me better understand what a jury is, and I lack the opportunity to contact a jury . On an occasion, I watched the film “12 Angry Men”. This excellent film has been remade in many countries, and the first time I saw it was the Chinese version. After watching this version of the movie, I immediately found the original movie to watch again. This movie produced in the 1950s made me understand what the jury is in a real sense for the first time, and also made me know the necessity and rationality of the existence of the jury.
12 Angry Men takes place in a scene in which twelve jurors are in a lounge deciding whether to commit a murder. The accused of murder was an 18-year-old child, and the deceased was his father. The 12 members of the jury must decide whether or not the child is guilty of murder. If true, the child will be sent to the electric chair and executed. If not, the reason must be based on “reasonable doubt” arising from the reasoning, questioning, evidence, testimony or procedure of the entire trial. Due to the abundance of witnesses and physical evidence, 11 of the 12 were absolutely sure of the boy’s guilt at first. Only Juror No. 8 found something unreasonable about the case. At the end of the movie, all 12 people decide that the child is not guilty.
I won’t go into too much detail about the movie on this blog, because it can’t be summed up in a few hundred words. But it is this process full of controversy that makes people really see the significance of the existence of the jury. At the beginning of the film, I also thought juror No.8 was wasting everyone’s time by deliberately presenting the opposite view. How can you change the outcome of this child’s crime, based on given the amount of evidence. But as every piece of evidence goes back and forth in the movie, every juror except No. 8 changes their mind along the way—from guilty to not guilty. Well, it’s not the outcome of the case that matters, it’s how we got there. Juror No.8 put forward one hypothesis after another, questioning one prosecution evidence after another. Every time he makes a hypothesis, someone is sure to contradict him. But when he proves that his hypothesis is reasonable and the other side can’t find anything to refute it, the other side will abandon the previous guilty verdict in favor of acquittal.
In fact, it’s easy to overwhelm someone with words, but it’s hard to argue with them and come to constructive conclusions. The reason why the 12 angry men in the movie are angry is because everyone is fighting against their own prejudices and narrowness. Of course, what makes this debate so fascinating is that everyone has their own ideas and what they are defending. The thing hidden behind the scenario is the unique democratic system culture of the United States, as well as the character of citizens in this cultural background.
“Because jury verdicts are rendered by members of the community, their legal decisions about guilt or innocence are assumed to have greater legitimacy and public acceptance than decisions by a single judge. The jury also serves as the conscience of the community because it is drawn precisely from the community in which the crime was committed.”
(Gruman, Schneider, & Coutts, 2017, p.307).
It is the special nature of juries that makes the above statement reasonable. The reason why jury decisions are more reasonable and acceptable to the public is that the jury synthesizes a large amount of information. The information comes from different races, ethnicities, genders, social status, cultural backgrounds. This information makes a case “outcome” more plausible. How can a justice system more fair for everyone? That is certainly one answer.
Reference
Gruman, J.A., Schneider, F.W., and Coutts, L.A. (2017). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
United Artists Corp. (1957). 12 Angry men. United States.
Hi
I had the same experience with getting to know the jury system since I was unfamiliar with the structure indicating the constituent elements within this particular system. I agree that having a diverse perspective might contribute positively to the complete overall judgments. In contrast, the likelihood of disagreement tends to aggrandize, which results in an extension for the last decision. Several potential issues currently exist in the jury system are prejudice and the unequal numbers of diverse races. The textbook Applied Social Psychology stated four distinguished biases: interstate’s, specific, generic, and normative discrimination. (Gruman, 2017, p.307) The first prejudice interest prejudice refers to a juror related to someone in the court and distributes substantial attention to the case. The biased jurors should be removed due to maintaining impartiality in the court. The essentials for the presence of jurors from the different racial background was addressed in the textbook. A review conducted by Sommers claimed that the defendant are racial minorities would convict more when there is a large scale of white members. (Gruman, 2017, p. 308)
I haven’t watched the “Twelve Angry Men” yet, but I hold different beliefs about his behaviors based on your summary about No.8. In my perspective, the judgment-making process is quite similar to how we conduct a scientific experiment. If the topic we choose is not falsifiable, then the prove process seems quite tedious. Hearing different voices could expand our fixed-thinking pattern. If the proven outcome was wrong，it does not hurt the solid truth; instead is more helpful with proving.
Reference:
Gruman, J.A., Schneider, F.W., and Coutts, L.A. (2017). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.