• Jury Duty Experience
• Rules for Civil Conversations
• A People's Voice on the American Jury System and the Twelve Angry Men Who Inspired It
|
JURY DELIBERATION • Jury Duty Experience • Rules for Civil Conversations • A People's Voice on the American Jury System and the Twelve Angry Men Who Inspired It |
My Current Events class was studying the impact of juries on our society.
This project grew into an in-depth study of the jury system and the use of bench trials. I believe the jury system is alive and here to stay. These young people over their course of study learned what it takes to provide justice to others in a Democratic society.
I would like to thank them for their energy and willingness to take this topic seriously. Our past experiences and diversity became a strength during the evolution of this project.
So, ask yourself one question as your read their comments: Are today's youth a jury of your peers?
Jim Gustafson
Evergreen Park High School
Evergreen Park, Illinois
1999
Name: Bob S.
Age: 17
Future: Athletic Trainer
Jury: "Jury duty is important because it gives people a fair trial. Having twelve people decide something instead of one gives you much less chance of making the wrong decision.
Name: Mike C.
Age: 15
Future: Computer Technician
Jury: "In America instead of having someone decide our fate, we have normal people like you or me."
Name: Faith A.
Age: 16
Grade: 11
Future: Marine Biologist
Jury: "The Jury system is important because it administrates justice."
Name: Ralph G.
Age: 17
Grade: 12
Future: Computer Technician
Jury: "Yes, because without people taking responsibility to help out with a trail we
could have convicted killers go free, and innocent people locked up."
Name: Erin M.
Age: 15
Grade: 9
Future: Lawyer
Jury: "Yes, because one person should not judge someone else's life."
Name: Dave S.
Age: 15
Grade: 10
Future: Computer Engineer
Jury: "Yes, because it keeps the power in the people's hands."
Name: Molly F.
Age: 14
Grade: 9
Future: Artist
Jury: "Yes, because it gives Americans an opportunity to participate in our judicial system, and try the accused fairly."
Name: Donna P.
Age: 18
Grade: 12
Future: Medical Doctor
Jury: "As a sign of appreciation for a democratic system, Americans of all types should participate. It's a symbol of loyalty to oneself, and an important component to our society and community."
Name: Dale M.
Age: 14
Grade: 9
Future: Computer Technician
Jury: "People should participate because
they are Americans, yet many people don't make it a priority."
Name: Lindsay A.
Age: 15
Grade: 10
Future: Lawyer
Jury: "I believe that people who determine who gets to go to jail or even death should be common day people of different backgrounds."
Name: Phil H.
Age: 17
Grade: 12
Future: Political columnist/Radio talk show host
Name: J.D. S.
Age: 14
Grade: 9
Future: Air Force Pilot
Jury: "Yes, because one person alone can't always be right."
Name: Ann Marie C.
Age: 15
Grade: 10
Future: Broadcasting
Jury: I believe it is only important if the Americans on the jury believe it is themselves."
Name: Tony K.
Age: 17
Grade: 12
Future: Businessman
Jury: "Jury duty allows people to have a fair trial."
Name: Megan S.
Age: 14
Grade: 9
Future: Lawyer
Jury: "Juries are the single most important part of the judicial system."
Name: Peter G.
Age: 17
Grade: 12
Future: Television Producer
Jury: "The jury system is important because it allows for the fairest trial possible."
Name: Matt F.
Age: 17
Grade: 12
Future: Writer
Jury: "Jury duty is important to American democracy because it puts the power in the hands of the common man."
Name: Nicole K.
Age: 14
Grade: 9
Future: Business woman
Jury: "Everyone should participate because there are many different kinds of people on trial; therefore a variety of jurors constitutes a jury of your peers."
Name: Corinne W.
Age: 15
Grade: 9
Future: Lawyer
Jury: "Yes, because with more people's opinions, you have a better chance than one person's opinion."
Name: Dallinta B.
Age: 15
Grade: 10
Future: Lawyer
Jury: "Yes."
American citizens should watch this movie because they will be able to see why juries should pay attention and take jury duty seriously. Plus, [they] see how your personality makes a difference. I learned that jury duty is important and that if there was only one guy/girl (judge) determining innocence, then the accused may be wrongly judged. This is because the judge has no one to get ideas from and discussion can benefit the person on trial. This should be important to Americans. - Corinne W.
Twelve Angry Men should be watched by citizens because it shows how when people work together, no matter how long it takes, a problem can be fixed and answered. These twelve men in the movie were fighting and acting self-centered. These men finally listened to the facts as well as each other. People in society today need to learn how to communicate with each other. People could learn a lot from Twelve Angry Men. I know I did. - Nicole K.
Americans should watch this movie because it deals with realism and a lot of other concepts. The fact that twelve men had to decide the fate of a young man was very emotional. They revised all the evidence and concluded there was room for reasonable doubt. If they went the other way they might have sent an innocent boy off to die. We got to see terrific actors perform and the characteristics each man portrayed to give his role personality. Others can learn many lessons from this movie about morals, values, and ethics. It is also a great educational movie to watch. - Faith A.
Every American should really watch Twelve Angry Men. It would show them how important jury duty is and why we should really take it seriously. This film showed me how it is to be in a jury and how many responsibilities you have to take on. I thought that anybody could be able to be in a jury, but now I know that you actually have to be very intelligent. I think others could learn to take jury duty seriously and to look and listen more carefully to every little detail in a trial. I think this film would teach us all not to rush into major decisions, to think things out, and to be a little more serious and less indifferent. - Molly F.
American citizens should watch Twelve Angry Men because it's a good example of how jury duty could help save an innocent person's life and convict people due to facts. It showed me that without a jury trial innocent people could be locked away while potential murders, rapists, etc. run wild in the streets. If more people would follow the example of this film they would more than likely go through with jury duty and possible save some innocent person's life. - Ralph G.
I believe that all citizens should watch Twelve Angry Men. I think it would help people to see that you really need to look at all the facts before you make your decision. What I got out of watching this movie was that next time when I'm judging someone, I'll take more time before I make a decision or [form an] opinion of or about the person. - Erin M.
I don't think everyone should watch Twelve Angry Men. But, it would be a good movie for everyone to see because it was interesting and a little bit funny. I didn't really get anything out of it but I got to watch a good movie. - Jim D.
Actually no one should have to watch Twelve Angry Men. Is America not a country with freedom of choice? The people who watch the movie will learn more about themselves. They will probably respect jury duty more. With that movie I learned more about it; I realized every choice you make affects yourself, but on a jury your choices affect the defendant for the rest of his/her life. But you should not have to watch the movie; after all it is your choice. - Ann Marie C.
Molly F. - "No, because the jury, for the most part, had good lives and couldn't relate to the defendant's hard life."
Matt F. - "Yes, because not every jury can be perfectly equal, and this jury is about as close as you can get."
Dave S. - "Yes, because they listened to the facts and discussed what was important."
Tony K. - "Yes, they made the right decision about the case."
JD S. - "No, because they don't know how teenagers feel and think."
Corinne W. - "No, because there is not enough of a variety of the types of people."
Peter G. - "Yes, because most of them were educated and fair-minded people."
Meg S.- "No, the men were older and grew up in different times. They knew nothing of the boy's life."
Ralph G. - "No, because the men were prejudiced against the young man because of his background."
Dallinta B. - "No, because I would prefer to be judged by people my own age."
Lindsay A. - "Yes, these men were a jury of peers because they all were from different backgrounds and a mixture of people."
Ann Marie C. - "Yes, that is how the jury system should work, because everyone is different and if everyone was the same they would have the same reasons for convicting someone, no one would look at the other facts."
Bob S. - "Yes, because in a jury there will usually be at least one person who will take it seriously and not make a decision based on what other people say."
Phil H. - "Yes, because most of the jurors had similar value systems and upbringings to me."
Jim D. - "Yes, because their good qualities outweigh their bad."
Mike C. - "Yes, they weren't perfect, but no matter who was a juror, they would all have flaws."
Nicole K. - "No, the jurors could not relate with an 18 yr. old boy because they were too old and had few children of their own."
Dale M. - "No, all the men on the jury were around or above the age of 30 and couldn't relate with an 18 yr. old boy."
Donna P. - "No, these men were way above the age-level for a 'peer' of an 18 year old, more importantly, they were middle class men with no experience from a broken home or poverty."
Mr. Gustafson - "Yes, this movie amplified the negative and positive qualities of the man on the street."
Verdict : 11 yes 9 No
Molly F. - "No, because the judge could have felt how the majority of the jury felt at first, at first he probably would have said guilty because nobody would be their to help think the case out."
Matt F. - "No, because one person could act to fast and make the wrong decision, and if it was only a judge, he could have made the political decision to get more votes."
Dave S. - "No, because there is a better chance of someone being on his side when there are 12 people."
Tony K. - "No, the judge might have prejudices against the boy."
Corinne W. - "No, because with a jury different perspectives can be brought out that go unnoticed by a single person."
Peter G. - "No, because it is better to get opinions from a multitude of people rather than a single judge."
Meg S. - "No, because the judge may have had more on his mind than delivering a fair verdict. Politics may have swayed his verdict."
Ralph G. - "No, because the judge wouldn't take the time needed to go over the facts that proved he could've been innocent."
Dallinta B. - "No, because he may go by what he thinks and not the facts."
Bob S. - "No, with a bench trial you get the opinion of only one person. With a jury you get 12 people who all have to agree.
Ann Marie C. - "No, I think a jury would be better, because they would be more attentive to the little details. 12 people are less likely to miss important facts than one person.
JD S. - "No, because one opinion is not always right."
Lindsay A. - "No, a jury of 12 people is more likely to give the accused a fair trial because they have different opinions as opposed to one judge."
Jim D. - "No, because the judge probably wouldn't take as much time to think about it as a jury would."
Phil H. - "No, the jury spent hours pouring over the most trivial details which a judge is not likely to do."
Mike C. - "No, because one person is more likely to be wrong than 12, whether they're a normal person or a judge."
Nicole K. - "No, within a jury the facts are discussed and analyzed more thoroughly, and with ajudge its one person's analysis."
Dale M. - "No, there is a better chance with 12 people being fair than with one, even a judge can be prejudiced."
Donna P. - "No, in a jury there are 12 people and most likely everyone of them is not going to agree. With 12 people there is more discussion, analysis and critical thinking. 12 minds are better than one."
Mr. Gustafson - "No, except, I wish O.J. Simpson had had a bench trial."
Verdict: Unanimous: No 20
Molly F. - "1 would eliminate Cobb, Warden and Begley because they judged the accused by their personal reasons and not the evidence."
Mat' F. - "I'd eliminate Cobb, Warden and Begley, because they were all too eager to see him go to the chair. I'd eliminate Henry Fonda because he was too eager to get him off."
Dave S. "I would eliminate Cobb, Warden and Webber; none of them seemed interested in the case.
Tony K. - "I wouldn't eliminate anyone because each brought something different to the case.
J.D. S. - "I would eliminate Marshall, Warden and Begley because they were too eager to leave the jury room."
Corinne W. - "Jack Warden, because he took a ball game more seriously than a man's life."
Peter G. - "Cobb, Warden and Begley should have been eliminated from the jury because they were not focusing on the facts of the trial."
Meg S. - "I would have gotten rid of the salesmen (Webber) because he cared nothing about the jury. I wouldn't have gotten rid of the father or the bigot because they forced the other evidence to come out."
Lindsay A. - "I would have eliminated Cobb and Begley. They were pigheaded and they were taking the trial personally, not as a law issue."
Ann Marie C. - "I would have eliminated Cobb and Begley because they came to trial with prejudices. How can a trial be fair with prejudiced jurors?"
Bob S. - "If I could eliminate one juror, it would be Ed Begley, the bigot. He was unwilling to listen to anything that anyone else said, and didn't want to believe that he could be wrong."
Jim D. - "Lee J. Cobb because he wasn't really thinking about the case; he was thinking about his own problems."
Phil H. - "Ed Begley because of his obvious prejudice; Jack Warden because of his apathy towards the trial; and Lee J. Cobb because of his emotional and personal history."
Mike C. - "I would eliminate Begley and Cobb because they wanted the boy to die for their own reasons, not because of the facts."
Nicole K. - "Jack Warden. He wasn't focused on the trial. His attention was on getting out of there rather than getting to the point."
Dale M. - "Ed Begley. His attitude towards the kid was filled with prejudice and contempt. (His comments in the movie are self-explanatory.)"
Donna P. - "Jack Warden. This guy is the worst. He is selfish, sarcastic, and judgmental. He is obsessed with unimportant factors (such as the room being too hot and the baseball game). His complete boredom demonstrates his lack of sincerity for anyone but himself."
Verdict:
Cobb - 12 no votes
Begley - l1 no votes
Warden - 9 no votes
Webber - 1 no vote
Marshall - 1 no vote
Fonda - 1 no vote
Molly F. - "I think Joseph Sweeney, because he had the courage to keep the trial going and put himself in the witness's position."
Matt F. - "I think George Voskovec is the best because he was willing to listen to both sides and form his own opinion."
Dave S. - "Edward Binns because he wasn't really for any side but he listened to everybody."
Tony K. - "Joseph Sweeney because when he agreed with Henry Fonda it was hard to stand up like that."
J.D. S. - "Jack Klugman was the best because he understood the boy and didn't rely on everyone else's introductions.
Corinne W. - "George Voskovec was the best juror because he paid close attention to the trial and seriously considered the importance of a man's fate."
Peter G. - "Joseph Sweeney was the best juror because he was willing to sacrifice his vote in order to allow Henry Fonda to present his opinions.
Meg S. - "The best was Joseph Sweeney because he stood up against 10 younger men to support Henry Fonda. The verdict would have been not guilty if all the jurors were Henry Fonda.
Ralph G. - "The best juror was Joseph Sweeney because even though he gave a not guilty vote because he was impressed with Henry Fonda's courage. He also had the courage to stand up to 10 younger men and stand by his decision.
Lindsay A. - "The best juror was George Voskovec because he paid the most attention, wrote notes and asked questions.
Ann Marie C. - "The best juror I thought was the immigrant George Voskovec. He paid attention to the details and looked at both sides of the story."
Bob S. - "The best juror was Jack Klugman, the kid from the slums. He didn't take his own life into the trial. Just because he and the kid grew up the same way, he didn't vote not guilty when he thought that he did it. He listened to both sides and didn't change his vote until he realized that the evidence might not be true."
Jim D. - "George Voskovec was the best juror because he took it the most seriously and took notes and really paid attention."
Phil H. - "The best juror was Joseph Sweeney because he was great at observing small details and leading the discussion in different directions.
Mike C. - "The best juror was George Voskovec because he paid close attention to everything and asked good questions."
Nicole K. - "Sweeney; he showed a lot of confidence in standing up for himself (being the old guy who everyone was pushing around) as well as giving Fonda support to stand alone (support for what is right.)
Dale M. - "Sweeney; he was willing to give Fonda a chance. He respected Fonda for being the outsider and took his side (willing to discuss the question, rather than jump to conclusions.)
Donna P. - "Honestly, no one juror can compare with the quality of Fonda. Yet a combination of Sweeney, John Fiedler, and George Voskovec can come close. They are willing to analyze the facts and make a fair, educated decision."
Verdict:
Joseph Sweeney 9 votes
George Voskovec 7 votes
Jack Klugman 2 votes
Edward Binns 1 vote
John Fiedler 1 vote