12 angry men(1957)

Intro:

On Thursday March 18^th the year 10 learners watched the movie 12 angry men (1957). The 1 and a half-hour movie was interesting and insightful as it gave us an overview of the jury system in deciding justice.

What the movie is about:

12 angry men (1957) is a film that tells the story of 12 men who try to deliberately come up with a final decision on what to do with the accused. The movie was adapted from a teleplay of the same name by Reginald rose. Unlike other movies this movie was filmed on only one set almost all the way through.

The stars:

Martin Balsam: (Juror #1), John Fielder: (Juror #2) , Lee j.cobb: (Juror #3) E.G Marshall: (juror #4), Jack klugman: (juror #5), Edward Binns: (juror #6) Jack warden: (juror #7), Henry fonda: (juror #8) Joseph Sweeney: (juror #9), Ed Begley: (juror #10), George Voskovec: (juror #11), Robert webber: (juror #12).

My opinion:

In my opinion I would give the movie 12 angry men (1957) three and a half stars out of five as it was good but not really one that I could relate to in many ways. The three words that I would use to describe this movie are unique, insightful and interesting.

Cinematic /film techniques:

Each jury had the role of making a final decision on what to do with the accused. Most of the jury’s were unreasonable, as they did not consider the possible outcomes of what could have happened in the case that was being investigated. More than half of the jurors did not have sufficient evidence to support their decisions. I feel that most of the jurors did not have enough evidence to support their decision. The cinematic/film techniques were not at all good as the most of the scenes in the movie were filmed in one small dull room with a big table surrounded by 12 chairs were each juror was sat at.

My favorite part/My not so favorite part:

My favorite parts of the movie were towards the end as the jurors finally agreed on one final decision after presenting sufficient evidence. One part that I did not enjoy was the second scene when the jurors first voted as they tried to make a final decision in only five minutes.

My favorite jurors:

My favorite jurors were juror 3 and juror 8. I particularly liked juror 3 because I found that his character was quite the interesting one. He was rude, biased, intolerant, and hateful all because of his teenage son. He was quick-to-convict. I found it interesting how one juror’s past could really have an impact in his final decision. Juror 3 was different to all the other jurors. At times he would stand up and raise his voice and try to get his point across and stop once he realized that what he was saying did not support his vote instead supported the opposing teams decision. Juror 8 was considerate of the case against the accused. He was dressed smartly (clad in white). He was patient, truthful and had logical reasoning. Juror 8 was one of my favorites because I really liked the way he presented his evidence to support the accused.

How the movie deepens our understanding:

12 angry men the film deepens our understanding of the role of the jury in deciding justice as the movie shows the different misunderstandings that can go wrong. After watching the movie it is clear to understand that it takes time for the jurors to all agree on one final decision. Many of the jury’s presented others jury’s with evidence to support their decisions. One thing I noticed was that some of the jurors made a final decision without even narrowing down the evidence as they had no reason as to why they had made that decision.

My overall opinion:

Over all I feel that 12 angry men the movie gave the year 10 learners a perspective of what its like when jurors make the final decision. The tension, the arguments and the small fights that can occur when 12 men are put in one tiny room and asked to make a final decision about someone’s life. I enjoyed the movie as it helped me understand a little more in depth about the jury system in deciding justice. 

Amnesty International: The death penalty

A few weeks ago two representatives for Amnesty International visited the year 10 learners and gave us an overview on the death penalty. Amnesty International is a HRO(Human rights organization) that protects human rights. It is looking to abolish the death penalty, as they believe that someone who kills someone else should not be killed too.

The two representatives presented the year 10 learners with some facts to support their opinions. They also presented some examples of previous cases to support their belief of the death penalty being abolished.

Today Malaysia, Singapore, Zambia and America are just some of the few countries that still practise the death penalty. Amnesty international was set up about 66 years ago. Ever since then the organization was set it it has managed to get many countries to abolish the death penalty. Today they are over 150 countries that have abolished the death penalty.

The question that remains is ”Should the death penalty be abolished?”

For every mistake there’s a consequence. For every crime there’s a punishment. But who are we to decide weather a person should live or not based on their actions. I am against the death penalty as I strongly feel that it is a cruel thing to do.

In my opinion I feel that the death penalty should be abolished. Killing a criminal who has committed a crime does not discourage the crime. It does not change the fact the crime has been committed. It is wrong to kill a person who has committed a crime. There will always be failings in the judicial and conviction system and death is final. A person’s life cannot be revived once taken even if they are found not guilty.

Another reason why the death penalty should be abolished is because it is expensive. Did you know that it is much cheaper to keep a criminal in prison for life rather than to take their life away? Just killing one person costs millions of dollars.

It is better to to keep a criminal who has committed a crime in prison that to kill them. Life imprisonment allows the criminal little freedom and poor quality but it is a much better punishment that the death penalty. It is a much better punishment that the death penalty as it allows the criminal to not only think, but also reflect on what he/or she has done.

Henry ford once said, “Capital punishment is as fundamentally wrong as a cure for crime as charity is wrong as a cure for poverty." Every living human has a right to live according to the truth tree believes.

There is always a possibility that the person, who is convicted, has not even committed the crime.

It is completely inhuman to allow the state to convict a criminal who is found guilty. Some people commit crimes, as they are mentally unstable while others do it because of lack of knowledge. I feel that we as humans do not have the right to decide whether someone should live or not based on their actions. Over all I am against the death penalty.

Perceptions

Interpretation- The action of explaining the meaning of something. How your brains explains to you what you see. 


Sensory- Our five senses: Smell, Touch, sight, hear, taste.

A tree as seen by a biologist, a logger, an environmentalist and a native from Sarawak.

Biologist: A structure made from cells that can photosynthesis. 
Logger: Money. Something i can cut down and benefit from.
Environmentalist: Save the tree and save the environment.
Native from Sarawak: Might interpret the tree as a religious symbol.

Facebook

law and Criminality