Essay Sample on Law of Evidence: 12 Angry Men

Introduction

"12 Angry Men," discusses how twelve men on a jury discuss and debate their views on the case for which they have been called, an 18-year-old has been accused of murdering his father with a knife. During the process, personal and emotional conflicts can not be left aside; the most objective and temperamental jurist tries to use reasoning to convince the others of the existence of reasonable doubt. The film deals with several topics for the analysis of what we are as a society and how the justice system is constructed. The film questions the judicial system directly and puts on the table concepts for discussion such as democracy, the value of life and the construction of verdicts.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Testimonies of Circumstantial Guilt

The circumstantial evidence is that which is inferred from the existence of one or several facts that, immediately related to the main event, lead to the conclusion that an event took place (Ellison, 2018). The circumstantial evidence is something that confirms a certain fact, but that is not necessarily related, or in a totally incontrovertible way, to the case that is being judged. It constitutes an indirect proof derived from reasoning about a situation, not from the fact itself or from perception through the senses (Ellison, 2018). The circumstance is, in turn, something relative to a given fact; a set of facts constitutes the circumstance of another central fact. There are several testimonies of circumstantial evidence in 12 angry men and they were all dealt with differently.

The Weapon of Crime

The weapon of crime. Further proof of the guilt would be the knife used in the crime, which the boy admitted to having bought that night after being picked up from his father, and this would be differentiated by his notched cable which was recognized by the shopkeeper who sold it in court and the friends of the young man (they met him at eight-forty-five and saw the knife) (John, 2016). The boy's argument was that the knife would have fallen out of his pocket when he left the house to go to a night session at the movies, and on returning at three-fifty in the morning he found his father dead. After many arguments, the eighth jury showed a knife equal to the crime, said to have bought near the boy's house in a pawn shop. So he proved he could have several of those knives.

Violence between Father and Son

Violence between father and son. One of the jurors claims to have been convinced that the defendant was guilty of the fact that the neighbors of the apartment heard a fight around eight in the evening and the father beat the son, who left the house angry, which would be reason enough to commit the crime. But the eighth jury objected and said that the boy had already been caught many times and violence would be routine for him, a weak motive for killing his own father.

Characteristics of the boy which described him as dangerous. The boy's file contained many elements for the jurors to consider violent. He stoned a teacher at age ten, at fourteen he was caught stealing a car, arrested for assault, and attempting to stab another boy, which shows his skill with knives, the weapon of his father's crime, but the eighth jury always argued and managed to show that the motives were not enough.

Testimonies of Direct Evidence of Guilt

Direct evidence is any evidence that provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. In short, the affirmation of guilt or innocence is validated. First, it should be direct or refute an event without making any assumptions or inferences (Ellison, 2018). If it does not resort to hypothesis or inference, then it will be circumstantial evidence. There are several testimonies of direct evidence in the movie and the manner through which they are dealt with is different from circumstantial testimonies.

The Testimony of the Elderly Neighbor

The testimony of the elderly neighbor. One of the reasons that led the eleven jurors to consider the young culprit was the testimony of an old man who lives on the second floor below the room where the crime occurred. He says he heard a fight between father and son where the young man said who would kill his father and soon after a body collapsed, all this happened around midnight, which coincides with what the coroner reported. The old man also saw the boy running up the stairs after the event and called the police who found the body with a stab in the chest (Weisselberg, 2007). But this testimony was contradicted by the fact that the old man had a problem with his leg, which prevents him from arriving so fast at the crime scene and seeing the boy coming out the stairs and also hearing the screams and the fight as the train passed by there and made a huge noise.

The neighbor sees the crime. Another testimony was that of a lady who lived in front of the boy, looking out of the window on the other side of the trail saw the young man stick a knife in his father's chest at midnight and ten. However, the eighth jury overturned this testimony. The reasoning was how could she identify everything that happened, having her vision problems, and see through the windows of the train that passed at the time? (Vidmar, Beale, Chemerinsky, & Coleman, 2007). Even though they said it would be possible to see on the other side of the empty dark train, for a lady and the night this did not it would be so easy.

Conclusion

One of the things that I saw in the film that was contrary to what I have learned is that some of the jurors used prejudice and hasty judgment without clarity of evidence and facts. The reasonable doubt is that attitude shown by the jury 8 to go beyond the "evidence" and discover how many times these are supported by a clear lack of reflection, disinterest, or that stained by prejudices or personalities disturb the possibility of exercising an evaluation of judgments from the critical reason of an ethical conscience. The judicial system is based on the principle founded by the Roman law: in dubio, pro reo (when in doubt, favor of the accused). This means that every person is innocent until proven guilty. It is important to emphasize that the innocence of the boy is not demonstrated, what is shown is the set of pre-judgments that condition an appearance of guilt, from which one has to disassociate oneself to judge coldly if there is consistent evidence -not merely circumstantial.

References

Ellison, D. (2018). WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE? Retrieved from https://www.dellisonlaw.com/what-is-the-difference-between-direct-and-circumstantial-evidence on 18th July 2019.John, T. (2016). Review of the Movie "12 Angry Men" under the Indian Evidence Act. Retrieved from https://johntechi.wordpress.com/2016/04/21/review-of-the-movie-12-angry-men-under-the-indian-evidence-act/ on 18th July 2019.

Vidmar, N., Beale, S. S., Chemerinsky, E., & Coleman Jr, J. E. (2007). Was He Guilty as Charged-An Alternative Narrative Based on the Circumstantial Evidence from 12 Angry Men? Chicago Kent Law Review 82(2), 691-710. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2472&context=faculty_scholarship

Weisselberg, C. D. (2007). Good film, bad jury. Chicago Kent Law Review 82(2), 717-734. https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2589&context=facpubs