He knew that the kid was guilty

He knew that the kid was guilty.

Seldom does one establish that they did not get the point of a movie with so few words.

yeah it was all just a prank
social experiment gone wrong

All he did was bring up one flimsy point with no.8 actually bring up good points. Guy was literally shitposting and made no.3 cry because he knew he could

>too much circunstancial evidence doesn't mean shit

>jury member laywering
can they do that?

Juror Investigation outside of the court record and exhibits is juror misconduct.

Samefag. This troll is too "intelligent" for Sup Forums

Well yeah.

This would've been so much better if it wasnt so obvious that the kid didnt do it. Knowing the jury may have been wrong at the end would've made it a GOAT movie.

I think this is the ultimate pleb test.

The main difference between this film and others about crimes (and one of the reasons why it is so brilliant) is that in this one we don't directly know the kid or watch the investigation, we don't hear the lawyers talk, we don't have anyone to confirm that the jurors are either right or wrong and etc.

What we have is the 12 men sharing their impressions. At the start they have a certain idea of what happened, at the end they realize their idea was not only uncertain but unlikely.

This means that if you are to say they are stupid for voting not guilty in the end, your reference is not some actual scene happening outside of that, but what the very own characters were saying early on. You'd say you don't buy their bullshit at the end, but you'd be willing to believe their bullshit at the beggining, a bulshit that the characters themselves drop as the film evolves.

It was a different time.

WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH

I would have voted guilty desu. How can you lose an exact copy of a knife who killed you father the same night of the crime?

You wouldn't have. There was too much peer pressure in that room.

>the kid isn't guilty because that woman needs glasses to see
>people only ever wear glasses for short-sightedness, never long-sightedness and never ever wear sunglasses

good film though.

Mistrial: The Movie

The kid absolutely did it beyond a reasonable doubt. If every trial had Juror No. 8 sitting on the jury, nobody would get convicted of anything.

You have to consider that you don't really know anything to be really true. If we don't know the real killer we also don't know if this killer tried to frame the kid, for example.

So did Fonda just manipulated everyone?

But why must we give the kid benefit of the doubt to that degree? The movie was really pushing it

This isn't of of your whodunits, ms Christie.

>The defendant, when we glimpse him, looks "ethnic" but of no specific group. He could be Italian, Turkish, Indian, Jewish, Arabic, Mexican. His eyes are ringed with dark circles, and he looks exhausted and frightened. In the jury room, some jurors make veiled references to "these people." Finally Juror No. 10 (Ed Begley) begins a racist rant ("You know how these people lie. It's born in them. They don't know what the truth is. And let me tell you, they don't need any real big reason to kill someone, either...") As he continues, one juror after another stands up from the jury table and walks away, turning his back. Even those who think the defendant is guilty can't sit and listen to Begley's prejudice. The scene is one of the most powerful in the movie.

He was Italian. Get a grip, Ebert.

he's the SJW of those times.

It wasn't obvious that he didn't do it but it was obvious as a bleeding asshole that the case was weak and the case against him was flawed.

It means that the accused had literally the WORST defence council imaginable.

Henry Fonda was the killer. How else did he have the exact same knife?

It wasn't about proving him innocent, it was about casting enough doubt on the circumstances to convince the other jurors that wasn't guilty.

Henry Fonda's character even says that he doesn't know if the kid murdered his dad or not.

Ok brainlet

Because he'll go to the electric chair if not.

>He was Italian
Thank you Peter

He manipulated no.8 who then manipulated 4 and so on and so forth. They played themselves

Because everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt, otherwise the state would be killing people on just hoping they got it right (not like that was not the case already). It is preferable to risk letting a murderer go than risk murdering an innocent man. They are right that they must be certain of it to decide and vote guilty.

If the story is obvious, than the answer is obvious. But if the story is confusing, even if it apparently points to the kid, then they must vote not guilty. The point of confusion is not explained and we cannot assume that it is the kid simply because the kid was in trial. To solve the confusion there would need to be more hypothesis, more investigation, etc. None of it is the jurors responsibility.

My point is that this makes total difference.

For instance, the glasses example cited. I too thought that was farfetched, but only because I can imagine how the woman looked like and had a first impression on what she talked about from what the jurors were saying. If the jurors themselves and even the man who was making the most rational case of her statements were convinced with the glasses argument, then I assume that if you and I saw her at the stand and heard that argument ourselves, we would also know that it was not sunglasses, or that it was indeed obvious that she took her glasses off because she was trying to look pretty and so on.

The point is not that we have a clear vision of what happened at the end, but that we don't.

Then its up to the judge to solve that, not the jury because they'll up getting a murderer acquitted. If it was such a problem the jury should of said something or the jury should hung the case so the kid could get another trial

Bu then a murderer goes free and the victim gets no justice?

Possibly yes. Which is infinitely more preferable than executing an innocent.

Proof? In every guilty verdict, there is a chance an innocent person is convicted,

But no. All you're doing then is completely undermining the process and forgetting the victim

Are you using that as an argument that we should just hope for the best?

Not that user, but you're not forgetting the victim. Not to mention the victim is dead (compare to a case of a wife beater returning home for example).

It's obvious that in all cases there is a risk of error. You can convict an innocent person or let go of a real criminal. But it's just so much sensible that the person in trial have the benefit of the doubt. That is not only a thing of the US btw, nor a modern thing either.

That is so because while there is a risk of letting a criminal go who might perhaps, maybe, commit another crime, if you arrest someone who is innocent, then without a doubt you are already committing a new crime, which really sucks.

>12 angry WHITE men

would they get away with this in 2017?

ALL FEMALE REMAKE WHEN!?!?!

Great movie.

You missed the whole point of 12 Angry Men entirely.
It doesn't matter is the kid actually guilty or not. The movie just shows that we need the "innocent until proven guilty" system if we want to keep the actual innocent people out of prison as much as possible, with the cost of letting a small number of guilty people free.

Did he do it or not doesn't matter, that's just a plot device for the narrative.

There's a reason why crimes must be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt."

This. Trials aren't about proving innocence. It's about proving that the evidence is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody is guilty. That's why verdicts are guilty and not guilty, instead of guilty and innocent. For a not guilty verdict, all that must be said is that the evidence is not sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Guilty or not, it couldn't be proved beyond a doubt, that's why he defended the kid. Did you not understand the film?

>all he did was make them actually think about the evidence

Holy shit, you might be on to something here.

The kid was his pupil

The le 'missing le point' guy is here, everyone stop discussing the subject NOW

This. Its not even a hard film. There is a reason they show it in high school.

>All you're doing then is completely undermining the process

You are upholding the process.

I hate you.

Juror 4 was based.
Fonda basically tricked him.

>He was an old man! He was lying, he only wanted the attention!
What a load of baloney

>You are upholding the process.

I'm upholding that part of the process because it works

>Complains about old man wanting attention
>Is an old man getting attention

BASED

Is your idea of a successful process that in the end someone gets fried?

I'm against giving someone so much benefit of the doubt that it may lead to him being able to squeeze out of the electric chair because we're so afraid to dole out justcie

I don't really want to get into how the movie would have been made today, but how is the justice system in the US about this? I really don't know. Aren't the jurors on any case supposed to be as varied as possible? I always thought that having 12 men was just a restriction of that time, how do choosing juries work anyway back then and now?

It's not that fucking strict of a system, my man. Shit that happens in movies and on tv rarely (if ever) happens in real life.

And consider if it was your life that was on the line when you hadn't actually done anything - you'd be pretty fucking grateful that the system wasn't 'guilty until proven innocent'.

Juries literally draw 12 random people. It's possible, though unlikely, to get 12 men.

Beyond all reasonable doubt.

That's the standard of proof required for a guilty verdict.

BEYOND

ALL

REASONABLE

DOUBT

It differs from state to state but it is possible to get a jury of 12 men but women are always chosen because they can help the defense and the prosecution.

better a thousand guilty men going free than one innocent man being convicted

Isn't there a jury selection process for capital cases?

>Juries literally draw 12 random people

Jury members have to be agreed upon by both sides before the case. The pool of selection is the only thing thats random

CAST the all female reboot (2019)

Twelve powerful women.

No. 3

>but how is the justice system in the US about this?
they can pick LITERALLY anyone

Murder, rape and a few other types

*tampers in your path*

Were you two too busy texting during the movie? She had indents in her nose. That only happens from wearing glasses for very extended periods of time. Far-sighted people only wear their glasses as needed (i.e. generally less than a few hours in total throughout entire day), and unless she wore sunglasses 24/7 they wouldn't have made indentations in her nose.

They draw many more than 12 people. There is an adversarial jury selection process between the prosecution and defense to pick jury members they believe will be most sympathetic to their clients/defendants. While the initial selection panel may be 30 people it's not necessarily unlikely, especially in the 50's, that the jury would end up all male.

watch fail safe

>Got a summons for jury duty a few months ago
>Threw that shit in the trash and nothing has happened
Why would you even show up for this shit

What state do you live in? Why wouldnt you want to serve on a jury? There are no downsides

HE really forces the concept of "doubt". If we can only vote guilty when we are absolutely sure, the nobody is guilty.

You get it. Finally

>Why wouldnt you want to serve on a jury?

Many jobs don't pay you for the time taken.

I never agreed with this idea. I have witnessed a Judge talking to a prosecuter. They were nervous because they released aguy from prison. Said guy went out to kill one of the witnesses.
Releasing a guilty is as bad as sentencing an innocent.

You miss a day of work,

>I never agreed with this idea

Good thing you, and people who think like you, don't run our legal system. If I was ever accused of a crime, I would be extremely glad for the fact that I wouldn't be so easily convicted on weak evidence.

>There are no downsides

Let me guess, you're living with your parents and they pay all your bills.

>this is what leftists ACTUALLY believe

But how unlikely it is to get 12 ANGRY men?

i fucking loved his voice I'm a bong but his voice had this way of projecting which was amazing in the movie very interesting accent

The problem is that you give a person every opportunity to be proven "not guilty". This is why guilty people get out and why technicalities cause so many issues

>kill everyone so that no guilty people are left alive
>this is what rightists ACTUALLY believe

That's not a problem. That's how it's supposed to work. You've just watched too many shitty courtroom or police procedural dramas where a mass murderer kills a dozen people and gets off scot free. But in reality the system works 99% of the time.

And putting that aside, there are more law abiding citizens than there are criminals. Why the fuck shouldn't the system be favoring the interests of the majority of society?

>Aren't the jurors on any case supposed to be as varied as possible?
im not even white i dont think skin color should matter here they were all pretty varied character with some stereotypes in there. Like the low class ball game guy. The old stuck up rich/racist guy. The european. One of "those" people. The old nice easy going guy. The hip ad guy etc.

I agree with the system in place, my issue is only with the degree of "reasonable doubt" afforded. Regardless of the divide, favouring the "non-criminal" so heavily only aids the the criminal

He's a liberal. They want all criminals to go free, especially the guilty ones. If an innocent person is accused they can use that as ammunition next time to let more guilty people go free. They're scum. Fuck liberals.

>It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished.... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever

>my issue is only with the degree of "reasonable doubt" afforded
Why do you think it's an unreasonable degree? If the prosecution thinks they have a case, they usually do. The idea that every case to convict a criminal is some sort of uphill battle is a false one.

>favouring the "non-criminal" so heavily only aids the the criminal
Demonstrably untrue. People have been found not guilty when the prosecution was unable to prove their case, and the in the course of the continuing investigation police have later found new evidence that pointed to the actual culprit. In which case, both the falsely accused defendant AND the public interest was served, precisely because the first person that was accused and tried did not go to jail. How often do you think the police keep investigating a crime after a conviction has served? Protip:fucking never

>old white man

Figures.

It's their job to deliberate the cases made by the defense and prosecution, as well as examine and re-examine the evidence. It may seem like defending, but the goal of conviction is to prove something 'beyond a reasonable doubt', and he had a reasonable doubt so he tried to make them see it as well.

>Aren't the jurors on any case supposed to be as varied as possible?
The prosecution and the defense select from a pool of random jurors to find who would be most likely to support their claims. If the case was, just for an example, about a drunk driving hit and run, and during an interview with the jurors one revealed that one of their family members was killed in a hit and run, they would be more likely to convict more quickly and succumb to their own emotional experiences, so the prosecution would push to put him on the jury, and the defense would try to keep him off. The pool is random, yet the final selected jurors are planned and agreed upon by both sides.

The basis for conviction is proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. He put forth reasonable doubt, and if they didn't think it was reasonable, they could have gone against it. They thought it was sufficiently reasonable enough to dissuade conviction.

I get to post this again.

>If we can only vote guilty when we are absolutely sure

Working as intended, then.

Because you have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Everyone is innocent until proven otherwise.