Revisiting Twelve Angry Men's Little Insights - Not a Film Critic

Blanca 2022-04-21 09:01:11

Inspired by the "Mother-humiliating Murder Case", when Sarah and I were discussing the utility of the Public Prosecution Law, I remembered a movie "12 Angery Men" (12 Angry Men) I watched N years ago. So I downloaded the 1957 version and revisited it. The jury system is a unique aspect of the American legal system, which is not found in the Chinese legal system. This film precisely describes very delicately how the jury reflects the prudence of the good side of human nature in the determination of guilt, and the reasoning process that reasonably doubts the rationality of the evidence, beyond the legal provisions. The whole movie only uses a single scene to interpret the story, but the plot is smooth and fascinating. It tells the story of a jury of 12 members of the community discussing whether a murder charge is warranted.
The protagonist of this story is an eighteen-year-old boy accused of murdering his own father. All the evidence points to the result that he is the murderer of his father. When the members of the jury expressed that there was no doubt about the result, one person stood up and said that he could not simply decide the life and death of a teenager who had experienced all kinds of hardships. Because he could not be sure of the facts, he doubted some of the evidence. This is how the story unfolds... The
ending is known to everyone, and the jury finally came to a unanimous conclusion that the juvenile was innocent. Whether such a reversal really exists in life, I don't know, if this story is true, then undoubtedly this teenager is lucky. Because his defense lawyers gave up on him, gave up his justice as a lawyer, failed to fulfill his defense responsibilities, doubted all kinds of evidence from the perspective of the defendant's innocence, and the testimony of witnesses directly pointed to the juvenile's guilt of. On the surface, the result is uncontroversial, but one member of the jury, out of insight into this situation, a trace of persistence in the beauty of human nature, and the courage to challenge social consensus, made it possible for things to turn around. In China, if there is no Weibo, no public indignation, and no public awareness, such as the mother-humiliating murder case, the Lijiang disfigurement case, the sudden death of a master's degree at the National People's Congress, etc., the parties who encounter these things may not be able to find inner peace for a long time.
I also suffered from my father's domestic violence as a child, and sometimes I also hate what happened to me, my father who did it to me, and my mother who was incapable of preventing it from happening. I remember that when I was in the fourth and fifth grade of elementary school, because I couldn’t stand my father’s beatings and scolding, I summoned the courage to call 110, hoping to seek help from the police. On the phone, he heard that I was a child and only asked me roughly. Where, I said that I was in XX, and then he said that the place was not under their control. There was a local police station, and he suggested that I go to them for help. But I still didn't give up, I hope they can come to help me, he may not be able to bear me, and finally promised me that they will come. I had been expecting them to come to my rescue, but in the end, they didn't show up.
Maybe it was from that time that I lost trust in the police. Looking back now, although I think it is understandable, at that time, it was a common thing for parents to beat their children. Whose children were not beaten up, and there was an old saying about a filial son under the stick. It can only be said that the times are changing. How I hope that the society that my children lived in can provide them with more sense of security. It will not happen when they are helpless and desperate. When they need help, they should be full of justice and selfless help. betrayed by the police.
Now I can also understand how great Lu Xun's choice of abandoning medicine and pursuing literature is in the textbook. For those people who cannot think independently and are used to following the crowd, we can only slowly guide and change their thoughts.
It is dramatic that most people change their views in such a short period of time in the movie, because they have the ability to think rationally and are willing to listen to the ideas of others. Of course, this is also because the jury selects the elites in the society class related. If it were someone like the type of people who kill people with their mouths on the Internet, the results may be completely different.
Sometimes what is the truth, no one knows, but as long as it is any possibility that threatens a person's life, we should treat it with dignity and respect.
Also, hold on.

View more about 12 Angry Men reviews

Extended Reading

12 Angry Men quotes

  • Juror #8: [after conducting an experiment to see if the old man could have reached his door in 15 seconds] Here's what I think happened: the old man heard the fight between the boy and his father a few hours earlier. Then, when he's lying in his bed, he heard a body hit the floor in the boy's apartment, heard the woman scream from across the street, got to his front door as fast as he could, heard somebody racing down the stairs and *assumed* it was the boy!

    Juror #6: I think that's possible!

    Juror #3: [from the other side of the room] *"Assumed"?*

    [Everyone looks at #3 as he chuckles]

    Juror #3: Brother, I've seen all kinds of dishonesty in my day, but this little display takes the cake. Y'all come in here with your hearts bleedin' all over the floor about slum kids and injustice, you listen to some fairy tales... Suddenly, you start gettin' through to some of these old ladies. Well, you're not getting through to me, I've had enough.

    [starts shouting]

    Juror #3: What's the *matter* with you guys? You all *know* he's guilty! He's *got* to burn! You're letting him slip through our fingers!

    Juror #8: [brow furrowing] "Slip through our fingers"? Are you his executioner?

    Juror #3: I'm one of 'em!

    Juror #8: ...Perhaps you'd like to pull the switch?

    Juror #3: For this kid? You bet I would!

    Juror #8: [baiting him] I feel sorry for you. What it must feel like to want to pull the switch! Ever since you walked into this room, you've been acting like a self-appointed public avenger. You want to see this boy die because you *personally* want it, not because of the facts! You're a sadist!

    [#3 lunges wildly at #8, who holds his ground. Several jurors hold #3 back]

    Juror #3: I'll kill him! I'll - *kill him!*

    Juror #8: [calmly] You don't *really* mean you'll kill me, do you?

  • Juror #8: [taking a cough drop that Juror #2 offered him] There's something else I'd like to talk about for a minute. Thanks. I think we've proved that the old man couldn't have heard the boy say "I'm gonna kill you", but supposing he did...

    Juror #10: [interrupting] You didn't prove it at all. What're you talking about?

    Juror #8: But supposing he really *did* hear it. This phrase, how many times have all of us used it? Probably thousands. "I could kill you for that, darling." "Junior, you do that once more and I'm gonna kill you." "Get in there, Rocky, and kill him!"... See, we say it every day. That doesn't mean we're gonna kill anyone.

    Juror #3: Wait a minute, what are you trying to give us here? The phrase was "I'm gonna kill you"; the kid yelled it at the top of his lungs... Don't tell me he didn't mean it! Anybody says a thing like that the way he said it, they mean it!

    Juror #2: Well, gee now, I don't know.

    [Everyone looks at #2]

    Juror #2: I remember I was arguing with the guy I work next to at the bank a couple of weeks ago. He called me an idiot, so I yelled at him.

    Juror #3: [pointing at #8] Now listen, this guy's tryin' to make you believe things that aren't so! The kid said he was gonna kill him, and he *did* kill him!

    Juror #8: Let me ask you this: do you really think the kid would shout out a thing like that so the whole neighborhood could hear him? I don't think so; he's much to bright for that.

    Juror #10: Bright? He's a common, ignorant slob. He don't even speak good English.

    Juror #11: [looking up] He *doesn't* even speak good English.