There are some movies that I am glad I have seen, but if they
pop up on TV, for example, on Turner Classic Movies, my initial reaction is to change
the channel, because they are depressing or they just don’t meet my mood at
that moment. The thing is, though, that
since I’m rather lazy, I don’t grab the remote quickly enough and, within a few
lines, I’m hooked and I watch the rest of the movie. One such film is 12 Angry Men[1]
and the other night I viewed most of the film one more time. I really like this film; I believe it should
be “a must watch” for any person summoned to serve on a felony case jury. For those who have not seen this film, the story
concerns a murder case in which everyone on the jury has decided to find the
defendant guilty, except for one juror.
This one “not guilty” juror begins questioning the evidence to the
discomfort and even anger of the other jurors.
Slowly but surely he, and eventually other jurors, change minds so that
by the end, the verdict is not guilty.
The conversations in the jury room generate reasonable doubt, for after
all, to find the accused guilty, all the jurors have to be convinced as to
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But
what does “beyond a reasonable doubt mean?”
This is not such an easy concept for civics’ students to
understand. First, a student needs to
understand that an accused does not, by this standard, have to prove his/her
innocence. Yet, despite this legal
refrain, in real courtrooms often the accused who doesn’t prove he/she is
innocent is convicted. On today’s Terry
Gross’ National Public Radio show, Fresh Air, her guest was a lawyer who
defends people on death row. Bryan
Stevenson told of one case in which the individual was defended by very competent
lawyers who presented a very viable argument as to the defendant’s innocence –
or at least a case that more than adequately engendered reasonable doubt. Yet, in Mr. Stevenson’s words, the jury was
too disposed toward finding the defendant guilty. Eventually, after the conviction, evidence
was assembled that proved the man innocent.
After years behind bars awaiting execution, he was released. Unfortunately, this is not a singular case;
we, from time to time, hear of such cases and see that those falsely accused are
released from prison after years of their lives having been sacrificed. He also told us of how the experiences had
lasting detrimental effects on these people’s lives.
I will not get into the usual array of definitions for
“beyond a reasonable doubt.” You can
readily find these on the web. What I
want, instead, is to offer a mental exercise students can do. A teacher could show students the film, 12 Angry Men, with a predetermined plan
to stop the film in spots that are conducive to this exercise. The students hear the evidence as presented
in the plot. The teacher stops and asks,
by a show of hands, which students think the defendant is guilty, and how many
think he is not guilty. Early on, the
teacher makes the point that no one “knows” whether the defendant is guilty or
not guilty; you can only believe one way or the other. So the question is: how do you believe in this case? But
then I would add another dimension. At
each stop, I would have the students imagine that before them is an all-knowing
being who actually knows the truth. They
can further imagine that whatever their vote is – guilty or not guilty – they
are to consider how much they are willing to bet that they are right. Since before them is someone who knows, we
can be told whether a students’ beliefs are correct. Are they willing to bet $10, $100,
$10,000? Of course, the meaningfulness
of the bet is dependent on one’s wealth.
So let the teacher say, in our exercise, the student is to adopt the role
of a median wealth type person. For that
person, $10,000 is meaningful. Teacher
asks: Are you so sure of your belief
that you are willing to bet $10,000? If
you are right, you at least keep your $10,000; if you are wrong, you lose your
$10,000. How sure are you? As the film progresses and, I’m sure, votes
will change as happens to the characters, the teacher can remind the students
how they voted earlier and perhaps how poorer they might have been if they had
voted guilty during the first few stops.
When one thinks of how jurors can find defendants guilty or
not guilty, it is useful to consider that jurors, other than the investment in time
the case is taking, have nothing to lose in their deliberations. We assume that they will take on this responsibility
as a civic obligation and do a good job.
One of the characters in the movie is upset because he is missing a ball
game by spending all this extra time to reconsider the evidence. He is even willing to change his vote just to
get the whole thing over. I am led to
believe that by and large jurors accept their duty responsibly. I certainly hope so.
[1]
This is a 1957 film starring Henry Fonda with a
stellar cast. The original version was a
dramatic production written and produced for television. The original script was written by Reginald
Rose. The film was directed by Sidney
Lumet.
No comments:
Post a Comment