12 Angry Men Critique - Essay Example

When the case reaches the jury, the majority of the 12-member jury has no doubt that the accused committed the murder. It is only juror no. 8, who offers a dissenting opinion and queries all the prosecutor’s evidence against the defendant. He goes to an extent of purchasing a knife that is akin to the one presented as murder evidence in a bid to convince fellow jurors that the prosecutor’s claim of “unique” was misplaced.

The dissenting juror finally manages to influence the opinion of the entire jury and drag them into the world of “reasonable doubt”. However, his reasons seem quite ludicrous. By making his queer judgments about the witnesses and pronouncing outrageous claims to disown them, juror number 8 appears quite bizarre. The juror goes ahead to disown another key witness who heard the crime taking place by asserting the claim that the old man probably made up his story to boost his ego. It is funny how the dissenting juror finally manages to get the other 11 jurors, who were initially convinced that the accused is guilty of murder, into his ship where reasonable doubt dictates all the evidence against the accused. The ruling of the jury is similarly interesting. The jurors unanimously make certain witness and evidence assumptions and conclude that the defendant is not guilty of murder. The other jurors arrive at this conclusion as an escape from the looming argument with juror number 8.

In my opinion, the jury made a big mistake. The defendant should have been held guilty of the offense. Since when has a juror become an investigator in a case over which he presides?  When operating by the law, jurors are barred from performing their investigations in cases. As such, Juror number 8 should have been substituted with another juror if the other eleven members of the jury had reported him trying to conduct his investigation. By failing to abide by the requirement of the law, the entire jury appears to have seriously erred in their ruling. Were they making a ruling to serve justice or to please the eighth juror?

The jury is responsible for ascertaining evidence authenticity rather than jeopardizing the prosecution's evidence while making bizarre witness postulations. As such, juror number 8 contravened the law. Justice in the criminal justice system is dependent on the decision of judges, who are expected to execute their duties diligently and observe the separation of powers. It is appalling to see the decision made in favor of a dissenting judge rather than based on the prosecutor’s evidence. The jury’s verdict was a big mess and a reversal of the decision would surely restore justice for the victim and curb any possible similar offense by the defendant in the future.