Did they let a guilty man go free?
I always thought it'd be dope if juror #8 actually committed the murder and didn't want to see a innocent person charged with the crime.
Would be too circumstantial or random to be the case though.
>entire cast is cis straight white men
When was the turning point in our culture when we began being more inclusive and diverse in our cinematic history?
>>68032161
>I always thought it'd be dope if juror #8 actually committed the murder and didn't want to see a innocent person charged with the crime.
Pretty sure there's a movie about that. Or he's the dude's lawyer.
>>68032168
I don't know anon, I see a lot of blacks and whites in this movie.
>>68032168
I'll take one for the team and reply to this post, so you don't have to
>>68032054
Doesn't matter. The job of the jury is to look at the evidence and ONLY convict if they're certain that he did it beyond reasonable doubt. In this case there was enough to not make them certain beyond reasonable doubt.
I mean, a juror isn't supposed to go off and do his own investigations either... But that wouldn't have been needed if the defence had actually done its job and presented the same evidence as he managed to scrounge up in an afternoon.
>>68032244
>>68032263
>I don't agree with it so it must be bait!
Come on now.
>>68032408
I'm feeling generous today, so I'll take another one for the team and reply to this post also
>>68032168
The Defiant Ones. Which also starred a whole bunch of sweaty angry men.
No, he was innocent until proven guilty. He wasn't proven guilty until the jury returns that verdict (ignoring jury nullification, of course).
>>68032168
We did a theatre production of this in my high school. We had to call it Twelve Angry Jurors since the lesbian director wanted women to be in it.
>>68032168
>>68032493
>12 Angry Women
>everyone has too much spite to change their vote
>hung jury
>>68032493
>lesbian director
How does one get into that field?
Courtroom movie thread?
It's really rare to come across a movie that actually doesn't have a single "evil" or "bad" character in it. There isn't even any assholes in it. Just guys doing their jobs. It's especially surprising when it's a movie dealing with lawyers and small-town judges.
>>68032668
WHAT IS A "YUTE"?
>>68032434
Thx anon
>>68032405
>>68032466
>they didn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did it
They did provide evidence, even if it was shaky evidence, that he was guilty. He could have been the one who did it. But because of reasonable doubt, which was manufactured entirely in the jury room, they returned "not guilty." The fifth amendment prevents people from being tried for the same crime twice, so if he DID do it, he can never be made to pay for it.
>jurors making assumptions and coming up with bullshit theories when they're supposed to work with the evidence presented to them
>>68033491
>work with the evidence presented to them
They did. They determined the evidence didn't hold up to proper scrutiny.
>>68035229
>>68033434
Finding a way to discredit each and every item the prosecution brings up is not "reasonable doubt". They concocted some really broad and unfounded reasons to throw out ever witness testimony, ignored how the murder weapon was something the kid owned, as well as the motive reported by another witness. Saying some old man lied that he saw it for attention or that the woman couldn't have seen without her glasses on is just as unfounded and a stretch as saying the kid did it because he didn't like his dad.
The one shaky piece of evidence is the kid forgetting his alibi, but combined with everything else thrown against him, odds are he did it. Its just too unlikely that every piece of evidence was a fabrication
>>68032668
Especially when its a movie about the south, its just way too easy to make easy stereotypes
>>68035731
They figured the woman needed glasses for one reason or another. They also figured she wasn't wearing her glasses to bed. This means there is a chance her eyesight prevented her from being able to properly tell what or who she saw.
They figured the old man with the limp couldn't have made it to the door in the timeframe he gave to see what he claimed to have seen. They also figured he couldn't have heard and understood what was shouted as the train passed, let alone who said it.
The murder weapon was identified as having the same design as the one he owned. It was proven that the knife was not in fact unique, and that there existed at least two knives of that type, which calls into question whether or not the knife was his or another.
These aren't stretches, these are reasonable doubts. The jury is meant to return a "guilty" verdict if and only if they have no reasonable doubt in their minds.
>>68036281
If we looked at every trial like that we would never convict anyone without DNA or catching them at the scene, the latter of which wasn't available in 1959
I really understand the importance of presuming innocence, but the way the movie goes about it seems absurd. They were coming up with reasons to doubt. Again, one of those may be reasonable. All three (and the alibi, and the motive) is hard to doubt
>spics
>innocent
He was guilty as fuck and also a serial rapist.
Monsters like this should stay in fucking Mexico.
>>68036400
If they could come up with reasons to doubt, then that means there are reasons to doubt. Those don't just come out of nowhere. The evidence wasn't unshakable, and had the defense been doing their job better they may have been able to get him off without the rigmarole the jury looking at every piece in isolation, and the verdict wouldn't be considered so unbelievable.
>>68036598
The key word is "reasonable." Not "look at it sideways and think up possibilities it might not be true."
Maybe there wasn't enough to convict, but I also couldn't dismiss all the evidence off hand.
>>68032054
As many times as I watched that film I've never once thought about the accused at all.
>>68036701
Is it reasonable to doubt that the old man with the limp couldn't have made it to the door in the time he said and saw what he did? They did a bit of a demonstration in the jury room where it was reasonably shown that it would have taken at least twice as long as he claimed.
Is it reasonable to doubt that the woman could see clearly the killing through the windows of the moving empty train at night? They figured that she must have had to wear glasses, but that she wasn't wearing them to bed the moment she looked out the window. Why she needed them is unknown, but it would be reasonable to question whether she could have seen what she said she'd seen.
Is it reasonable to doubt that the knife was for sure his knife? Juror #8 went to the boy's street and purchased a knife almost identical to the murder weapon. Since the shopkeeper claimed to have never seen any like it, it would be reasonable to figure he hadn't seen it in any other knife shops on his street. Since the juror obviously found one on that street, it's reasonable to believe the knife he bought was recently brought into the street, and that perhaps it was even the boy's knife, found and resold. This wasn't brought up in the movie, but it is one possible interpretation of what may have happened.
Is it reasonable to doubt that the boy just didn't actually remember the movies he saw? He may have been under emotional distress, because his father just died, abusive as he was.
Is it reasonable to doubt ALL OF THESE at once? Yes. If you could doubt each one separately, there's no reason to assume they're undoubtable just because they're taken together.
>>68032054
A supreme justice of the supreme court said that this movie presented a non-stop series of legal fallacies and lines of reasoning that would cause the judge to call for a retrial due to jury incompetence.
This was the earliest "ignorant but well meaning hollywood liberal social commentary" film. Everyone lauds it for its biting reality, when it's essence is more allegorical and fictional
>>68032668
really good movie
>>68037392
Jurors aren't supposed to conduct their own investigations, which is the problem.
>>68032168
I know this is bait, but I've always been curious how being "cis gendered" is a bad thing.
It just means I'm a happier person than you are with who I am and see everyone for who they are rather than who they want to be. I'll live the rest of my life never questioning if I did the right thing or not because it doesn't matter.
I'm here and I'll make the best of it until the day I die.
So many angry people in the world for no reason.
>>68032168
The 88th Academy Awards
The punk kid probably did commit murder, but there was a reasonable doubt. We need overwhelming evidence or we become SJWs advocating all men accused of rape be shot.
>>68036400
Oh man this almost made me pop a blood vessel. We SHOULD be looking at every fucking case like this unless there's irrefutable proof that someone committed a crime that will end the rest of their lives. How are you any different when you throw away the points made by the jury that could be considered truth just as much as what the witnesses had claimed to have seen?
The law is a complex system and should always be based around certainty rather than "well it's 99% guilty"
There was a case a few years back in Florida where it was claimed a women had killed her baby but because there wasn't a surplus amount of evidence it was all thrown up. I believe extremely that she had killed her baby, but if the court dictates there was no indication of it happening then I have to respect that or else the law means absolutely nothing.
ITT 12 Angry Neckbeards
>>68032813
>>68032668
you fucks are making me want grits.
>>68032168
>diverse
Oh come off it, this cast of 12 angry cis straight white males is more diverse than any forced ethnic characters for the sake of having them.
>>68032168
>Entire cast is white
Some of them were Jews and Italians though.
I think one was Irish too.
>>68035731
Witness testimony is fucking garbage lmao
