Movies

12135 readers

149 users here now

Welcome to Movies, a community for discussing movies, film news, box office, and more! We want this to be a place for members to feel safe to discuss and share everything they love about movies and movie related things. Please feel free to take part and help our community grow!

Related Communities:

!books@lemmy.world - Discussing books and book-related things.

!comicbooks@lemmy.world - A place to discuss comic books of all types.

!marvelstudios@lemmy.world - LW's home for all things MCU.

While posting and commenting in this community, you must abide by the Lemmy.World Terms of Service: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, or advocating violence will be removed.
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally insult others.
Spam, self promotion, trolling, and bots are not allowed
Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem.

Regarding spoilers; Please put "(Spoilers)" in the title of your post if you anticipate spoilers, as we do not currently have a spoiler tag available. If your post contains an image that could be considered a spoiler, please mark the thread as NSFW so the image gets blurred. As far as how long to wait until the post is no longer a spoiler, please just use your best judgement. Everyone has a different idea on this, so we don't want to make any hard limits.

Please use spoiler tags whenever commenting a spoiler in a non-spoiler thread. Most of the Lemmy clients don't support this but we want to get into the habit as clients will be supporting in the future.

Failure to follow these guidelines will result in your post/comment being removed and/or more severe actions. All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. We ask that the users report any comment or post that violates the rules, and to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

(Spoilers) In 12 Angry Men (1957), was the behaviour of the jurists strictly legal? (lemmy.world)

submitted 15 hours ago by 58008@lemmy.world to c/movies@lemmy.world

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Huge spoilers ahead!

The jury, in particular the main protagonist, seemed to wade into illegal territory more than once. But being a complete layman who's never been on a jury, I don't know for sure.

Doing one's own research and bringing one's own "evidence" into the jury room, and not presenting it to the prosecution or defence, seems like a no no. The knife the protagonist finds in a store and brings in to show his fellow jurists that the prosecutor was wrong about its uniqueness; this feels like mistrial levels of inappropriate. Making judgements about credibility based on whether or not someone was wearing their glasses in court by noticing their nose has the telltale markings of a glasses wearer, something not pointed to by the defence as worthy of note, likewise seems off limits.

Is it not the case that the jury has to work only with information and evidence presented during the trial? And in fact can be told to ignore certain evidence from the trial if the judge deems it stricken from the record? Is it expected or acceptable for jurists to come up with their own alternate scenarios and narratives that fit the evidence or are they bound only to consider the theories presented by the defence and the prosecution?

Perhaps in the '50s this was all above board but the law changed since then. Or maybe my movie-based understanding of juries is a Frankenstein mishmash of true and bullshit. Probably that.

Great film deserving of its place atop "best films ever" lists, and I even liked the '90s remake!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Ilandar@lemmy.today 7 points 14 hours ago

I don't believe it was legal, no. However, that does not necessarily work against the film as jurors frequently ignore the court's instructions and do their own thing (including doing their own independent research and discussing/introducing that to their other jurors). You hear about it when they get caught, but I have to assume that in many cases they do not. I guess it adds a further interesting dynamic to the film. Was it right for the juror to disobey the court's instructions in pursuit of his own belief that the accused was innocent? Is strict adherence to the laws our society's function under more important than adherence to our own moral code?

There was a reality TV show in Australia last year where a jury of 12 people sat through a full re-enactment of a real manslaughter trial that occurred in Australia and then had to reach their own verdict. The real life verdict was only revealed after they'd submitted theirs. It was pretty interesting how difficult it was for certain people to follow the court's instructions, put aside their own beliefs and preconceptions and focus on the facts of the case. I get the feeling that if someone these people had been called up for jury duty in real life, they 100% would have pulled a Juror 8 and just done whatever was necessary to reach the "right" verdict.