Twelve Angry Men Analysis Paper - Essay Example

At the start of their deliberations, all the jurors pass a guilty verdict against the defendant except one juror. This forces the juror to examine the evidence and after tireless arguments, they emerge with a not guilty verdict. Analysis Due process is one of the major principles of American jurisprudence, which is enshrined in the fifth amendment of the constitution. Due process requires that no person be detained to respond for a capital, or an infamous offense, except on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.

Before a person is convicted on a criminal offence, due process requires that the Jury come to a unanimous decision. Lack of a unanimous guilty verdict in the first vote in Twelve Angry men, ensures that the jury re-examines the evidence until not all of them vote guilty as their verdict. This is to ensure that the correct verdict has been reached which is a sign of agreement by all the jurors, solidarity, and unity and to prove that the decision lacks any doubt. A unanimous decision will also ensure that the accused does not face another trial (Siegel, Schmalleger and Worrall 39).

Due process also requires that the prosecution prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to ensure that the jury returns a conviction of guilty. In case the Prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, then the defendant will always be acquitted. Proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt also ensures that the prosecution has given enough evidence to show that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible (Siegel, Schmalleger and Worrall 44).

The prosecution could not prove their case beyond reasonable doubt in Twelve Angry Men hence the jury’s decision to come back with a not guilty verdict. Due process of law requires a presumption of innocence by the government on a criminal in case of lack of any contrary evidence. Presumption of innocence is applied in due process to ensure that the government proves the case of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant in this case is presumed innocent before the hearing and when due process takes effect, he is found not guilty because the prosecution’s case could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

A defendant in any criminal case has a right to a jury of his peers. This ensures that the defendant gets a fair verdict, which will be morally held and cannot be contested (Siegel, Schmalleger and Worrall 56). One of the jurors who voted the defendant guilty at first is juror 3. He has preconceived notions about the case and quite antagonistic to juror 8 who votes not guilty. He is a temperamental man who loses his temper whenever anyone opposes his ideas. He has a bad relationship with his son and this makes him to judge the defendant guilty for his crime due to his problems at home.

He argues that based on the evidence provided, the case was simple and straightforward thus his conviction that the defendant is guilty. He however changes his mind and is the last person to vote not guilty after coming to terms with his problem. Juror 10, Ed Begley is one of the jurors who show prejudice in terms of his judgment. He votes guilty at the start because he believes that the defendant comes from the ghetto and people from the ghetto kill