By now you are well aware of how easy it is to “cherry pick” evidence. In the article you just read, Mike D’Angelo makes the case that the jurors in 12 Angry Men made a big mistake in their assessment of the evidence: while there was room for reasonable doubt about any of the pieces of evidence taken individually, their combined weight really leaves no room for doubt. Do you agree with his assessment? Why or why not?
27 thoughts on “Did 12 Angry Men Get It Wrong?”
Comments are closed.
Mike D’Angelo does indeed make a good case in his argument, yet I still think the jurors in 12 Angry Men made the correct decision. I understand that D’Angelo believes that all of the evidence put together proves “the Kid’s” guilt, but I still believe that the jury made a better argument, specifically juror #8. Now, this may be in large part due to the fact that 12 Angry Men was a motion picture and this was just an article. In a film it’s definitely easier for one to prove a point and have adequate time to do so, but I just do not think D’Angelo has enough well developed points to strengthen his argument.
First, his argument paints the two key witnesses, the man downstairs and the woman across the street, as liars. Rather, juror #8 finds them to be mistaken rather than liars. I find it very hard to believe that these two elderly witnesses lied under oath just to feel important. Second, D’Angelo is confident that the boy would’ve remember details about the movie he just saw even after his father died. If I came home to discover my dad, who is also one of my best friends, murdered, I wouldn’t even remember my own name not to mention the name of the film I just saw. Also, I watch movies all the time and by the next day I can’t even remember the name. Lastly, the jury did a better job explaining the evidence when it came to the knife. The jury proved that this was no common knife and thus anyone could have gotten their hands on it. So even if there is some debate that the boy coincidentally lost the knife, there is still a debate and ultimately reasonable doubt, and thus it would have been wrong to convict “the Kid” of murder.
The viewing of 12 Angry Men in this class was the 2nd time I saw the movie. The first time was in a high school Film class, and I remember feeling much like the glasses-wearing juror and was one of the last Guilty votes. There was just so much evidence that “the kid” did kill his father. After reading this article, I think that it is possible that the jurors got it wrong. The probability of all the evidence pointing to the son as the killer overwhelms all the evidence to the contrary. And really, there was no evidence to the contrary. All Juror #8 did was show how the evidence could have another explanation; he instilled some doubt.
But what are the odds that your father gets killed soon after you shout you would kill him, two people identify you as the killer, and your dad was killed with a knife just like the one you owned (now claim you lost), your alibi is unsupported and you are not the killer? I think the article was right in that the probability of the kid killing the father is more likely than not.
This is one instance where I would cite the principle of Occam’s Razor, which says that when faced with competing theories, the simplest one is usually correct. The more assumptions you need to make to prove your point, the more unlikely your hypothesis is. Juror #8 had to make too many “suppose” and “what if’s” to disprove the evidence. “12 Angry Men” did get it wrong.
I think the author made great points in his assessment of 12 Angry Men. I did question some of the evidence after the film but didn’t think as thoroughly as the author did. The example the author provides of the switchblade being the same as the switchblade found in the murder scene is a great point to question. I also want to question the creditability of this evidence. How likely is it that the person who murdered the boy’s father has the same blade as the boy? And what further makes me question the blade is that the boy no longer had the blade in his possession. I would give him the benefit of doubt if the blade was in his possession and a similar blade was used to kill his father by someone else.
Furthermore, the other part of the reasoning that I am having a hard time accepting is the boy not identifying any part of the movie he saw before his father was murdered. Maybe he didn’t remember the name of the movie or the characters when he was arrested, but he should remember some details a few days after he was arrested. I understand he was in shock when he was arrested but he was probably given some time in between the time he was arrested and the time his lawyer spoke with him. He could of recalled some portion of the movie to serve as his alibi but he didn’t remember anything even after the arresting period.
Lastly, I was also interested to know who would set up the murder scene the way it was set up. Who would know that the boy was having an argument with his father and think that time would be the perfect time to come and kills his father?
Mike D’Angelo’s piece is a compelling read, as he makes several valid points in his argument. However, I still believe that the jurors came to the correct conclusion. The jurors were supposed to make a unanimous decision, and Henry Fonda’s character ensured that the group discussed all evidence and “any reasonable doubt” that the jurors had. While there are several combined pieces of evidence that may make the “The Kid” look guilty, it is still possible that he is innocent. If he is innocent, then he certainly should not receive the death penalty.
D’Angelo claims that “you cannot have that much damning evidence pointing at your guilt and still be innocent, unless all of it was deliberately manufactured.” The jurors had a life or death situation at hand and were not wrong to scrutinize every piece of evidence available to them. If the female witness across the street claimed she saw “The Kid” murder his father, but was not wearing eyeglasses at the time of the crime, then her testimony is questionable. “The Kid” was unable to recall the movie he claimed he watched the night his father passed away to support his alibi. As was discussed by the jurors in the movie, it is likely that “The Kid” was traumatized from his father’s death and could not easily recall such information.
Therefore, I still support the jurors’ careful decision not to send “The Kid” on his way to a wrongful death as a punishment for a crime he may not have committed.
The 12 Angry Men may have quite “possibly” gotten it wrong. Then again, that’s the operative word, isnt it? Possibly.
The author’s ultimate deduction is premised on probabilities—the unlikelihood that the convergence of evidence is purely coincidental. He attempts to make the case that, “the Kid”—as he references the young man on trial, would have to have the odds of a national lottery winner to have all this evidence against him and not be guilty. He adds that Vincent Bugliosi, the author of “Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder”, explained in an almost parallel situation, O.J. Simpson’s guilt despite the jury not finding him guilty. Finally, he discusses the improbability of a juror having the same type of knife as the accused.
The fundamental weakness in the author’s presentation is that he completely undermines each of his key arguments. For the first point, he implicitly agrees that people do win the lottery, however long the odds are. Secondly, by his own admission, Bugliosi, due to his own biases, failed to admit the possibility of evidence being planted by the police to ensure that the jury found O.J. Simpson guilty. Why would this case preclude similar possibilities? Finally, the author curiously admits to the rarest of coincidences where two brothers were killed under very similar circumstances while discussing in parallel, the probability of two people, the juror and the accused, having the same type of knife.
Did the 12 Angry men get it wrong? Probably.
The article by Mike D’Angelo argues that the Twelve Angry Men must have incorrectly acquitted the Kid based on reasoning that, while seemingly logical when examined piece-by-piece, is in actuality faulty when viewed as a whole. More specifically, D’Angelo states that it is extremely improbable that the little bit of doubt associated with each piece of evidence necessitated doubt about all the evidence.
I agree with D’Angelo to some extent. After all, as D’Angelo writes, “Some of these coincidences are individually believable—it’s quite possible that both eyewitnesses honestly convinced themselves they saw The Kid, when they actually just saw a vague figure. But as Bugliosi notes of both Simpson and Oswald, in the real world, you cannot have that much damning evidence pointing at your guilt and still be innocent, unless all of it was deliberately manufactured.” It just seems improbable that so many coincidences happened in relation to the same event.
At the same time, however, it is important to consider the context of the situation. Were those coincidences all really such uncommon occurrences in the Kid’s world? In an inner-city setting, in which murder is all too common, the coincidences that occurred in the case of the Kid may not have been so doubtful. As Juror 8 pointed out, the kind of switchblade that the Kid owned and that was used to kill his father was very common in the neighborhood. The fact that the Kid yelled “I’m going to kill you!” to his father that morning; was that a common statement used among people in the Kid’s neighborhood? I am not saying that D’Angelo is not right; on the contrary, I believe that his argument is based on reason. I just also think that it is important to consider evidence within context, and to avoid assuming that any once occurrence is unlikely to occur simply because it is not common in one’s own world.
After reading Mike D’Angelo’s assessment of 12 Angry Men, I find there to be quite a few faults in his argument that the defendant was guilty.
1. I think the entire purpose of the film was that perhaps the jurors are letting a guilty man walk free. While it is easier to accept the plot where the evidence is more in favor of the defendant, the entire purpose of the movie was to explore what is great about our justice system. In the United States justice system, one is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. When there are doubts and insufficient hard evidence, it is better to acquit a guilty man than to imprison an innocent man. The movie and what Juror 8 advocates are not just the possible innocence of the defendant, but the defense of due process.
2. To make the analytical argument that if defendant is innocent than so is OJ Simpson for similar circumstances is equally faulty. The jury in the OJ Simpson case was presented with reasonable doubt: a glove that didn’t fit, very physical proof of a racist and corrupt police department conducting the case, etc.
I would say that this article is less about what the outcomes were of the trial and more a statement of how the author feels about the judicial system.
Mike D’Angelo’s assessment of the “12 Angry Men” has a lot of valid points. As he puts it. each of the evidence when taken individually can be questionable but when they are all put together, it seems to have a very strong grounds to suggesting that the kid is guilty of the murder charges. The evidence taken solely on the bases of how they were presented, give the prosecuting team a very strong case against the defendant.
It is very interesting that D’Angelo used the same analogy to explain why O. J. Simpson could not have been guilty of the charges that was brought up against him. He was able to explain that if they were able to poke holes in some of the evidence then the defendant can not be convicted of the crime. He went on to say that also if all the evidence supposed points so strongly to the defendant then the probability of the evidence being fabricated is very strong.
This great judiciary system that we have here in our country to help judge and decide who is guilty and needed to be punished and who to set free or pardon is a very crucial thing. I think and believe it is an excellent system when it is used right but this same system can be manipulated to give outcomes that will be more favorable to one side than the other.
As in the “12 Angry Men” there are many things that supposedly linked the kid to murdering his father and in the same way there were many evidence that as juror 8 brought up could be coincidence. The kid screaming he was going to kill his father earlier in the day and then the father being found dead later is not a very strong evidence to me. Also the type of knife used in the murder was a knife the kid own but was easily found in the neighborhood they lived. All these when considered does weaken the prosecutor’s case.
I believe the juror in the “12 Angry Men” made the right assessments with the evidence they were given and how it was portrayed to them.
I do not agreed with D’Angelo’s assessments of the trial in the 12 Angry Men. Based on his assessments, D’Angelo, believed, “Examining each piece of evidence in a vacuum… adds up to reasonable doubt,” nevertheless, it becomes implausible not to found the defendant guilty with the combined weights of the evidences. In line with the subject matters of this week’s readings and lecture, we found that reasoning and decisions makings in most aspects of human interactions are prone to heuristics biases, and cognitive shortcuts. This is because most decisions making process, are based on reliance on our beliefs and experiences. While, judging from the improbability of some of the individual “evidences” and “facts” presented, there are certainly indications and reasons to believe that “the Kid” could have been guilty of the killing as accused. However, for me, it is the combined weight of all the “evidences” that certainly created reasonable doubts. Based on the example D’Angelo himself presented, there are possibilities that the police might have planted some evidences in the O.J Simpson’s case to enhance their theory. Likewise, in this case it just might be possible, that some “evidences” were also enhanced, to bolster the fact that “the Kid” was unlikely to be innocent, judging from the outcomes expected of someone with his history.
The readings on deliberations and reasoning showed that many decisions are based on heuristics, and decisions making processes are based on beliefs and experiences concerning the likelihood of certain events outcome. The information that “the Kid” had been heard earlier yelling “I am gonna kill you” to his father by several people, may have lead the neighbors to strongly believe the boy actually did killed his father. This may have prompted their heuristics conclusions, leading to “evidences” of biases and cognitive shortcuts. Again, based on Cialdini’s seven principles of cognitive shortcuts, it is possible that most of the “witnesses” gave evidences to convict the boy of the murder, in order to fulfill their perceived civic obligations. On the part of the jury, they were given limited or wrong evidences. For example, the jury had been told, there was no possibility of someone else owing the type of knife used in the killing, only for jury no 8 to find the same exact knife in a neighborhood store, were the killing occurred. As stated by Tversky and Kahneman, “assessing data of limited validity are based on heuristic rules” which leads to predictability, which are not always correct.
With the boy’s life on the line, the jury can not afford to hand in the wrong verdict. The evidence may build a strong case on the surface but looking deeper it could be possible that much of what transpired was coincidental. The boy lost his switchblade, but maybe he through it away out of fear of being caught with a weapon. It was a unique blade, but obviously available to purchase. How often have we walked down the street and seen someone with our same dress, shoe, or bag? Maybe the person lives in the neighborhood and decided to buy the knife from a similar shop. Often times criminals stake out their targets for many days waiting for the right opportunity. Who ever killed the father, probably choose to strike at the best moment, immediately after a heated argument. My point, it can happen.
In the article by Mike D’Angelo we see the author making the case that a big mistake was made by the jurors in their assessment of the evidence and that the combined weight of the evidence leaves no room for doubt. After reading his article I find myself a bit conflicted, as Mr. D’Angelo makes a convincing case in his article. Indeed it took one juror to reason each detail of the case and present contradicting evidence and introduce ‘reasonable doubt’ to the jurors.
I agree with the assessment of Mr. D’Angelo to a certain degree however, if the jurors were required to prove guilt beyond a ‘reasonable doubt’ then I believe they made the right decision. Since I believe there was enough reasonable doubt introduced to acquit the defendant. Based on the evidence provided, I believe the jurors reasoned the evidence and presented the “not guilty” verdict based on the evidence presented. If I had been a member of that jury, I would not be comfortable sending a young man to his death based on the evidence in the case.
Mike D’Angelo makes a very convincing case in his article “Did 12 Angry Men get it wrong?” I agree with his argument that while each individual piece of evidence could be countered, as it is one by one in the film, it would be extraordinarily coincidental for every single piece of evidence to be false. The way each piece of evidence is “proven” to be false in the film is also very convincing. And D’Angelo reiterates all of these arguments in his article. It makes sense that the woman across the street would not be able to clearly see The Kid from her window if she was not wearing her glasses. On the other hand, explanations like these for every single piece of evidence all at the same time, is unlikely as D’Angelo argues.
I think this goes back to a line in the film by Juror #8 when he repeatedly says that he’s not sure if The Kid is guilty or not, but “it’s possible!” that’s he’s innocent. That possibility is key here. Because the punishment would be so immediate and so drastic as the death penalty, the stakes are much higher. Had the defendant been able to appeal or the punishment be jail time, then perhaps The Kid could have been convicted. However, if there is even a possibility that he may be innocent and each individual piece of evidence could be torn apart and disproven (even if they do not work together), then he should not be considered guilty and given the death penalty.
I do not agree with Mike D’Angelo’s assessment. On the one hand, his argument that “You’d have to be the jurisprudential inverse of a national lottery winner to face so many apparently damning coincidences and misidentifications” is compelling. It makes sense to me that not all the individual pieces of evidence presented are true. However, Mike D’Angelo’s statement that “determining whether a defendant should be convicted or acquitted isn’t—or at least shouldn’t be—a matter of examining each piece of evidence in a vacuum” is simply inaccurate. When serving in a jury, one is required to decide on the guilt of the defendant based on the standard of reasonable doubt, period. I’ve served on a jury, and when the judge explained the principle of “reasonable doubt” he did not specify whether that doubt only matters when it comes to individual pieces of evidence or the totality of the evidence. Should I be called to make a decision on someone’s life (or even just prison time) and I had doubt based on part of the evidence I was presented with, that would be enough reasonable doubt not to convict.
I don’t agree with D’Angelo’s assessment on 12 Angry Men. It appears that he is basing his reasoning on the idea that everything in the film seems “too coincidental.” I believe this type of thinking is wrong because it assumes that the improbable is impossible. Of course one can argue that this particular scenario doesn’t represent a typical criminal case, but this particular case can certainly occur in real life.
And why were the events of the film too coincidental? Was it because it wasn’t random enough? From my understanding, it looks as if his idea of realism is centered around the idea of randomness. I think the fault in his reasoning is partly due to his flawed perception on randomness. Let me provide you with an example. If I were to flip a coin, chances of getting heads or tails is 50%. Right? Yes, but that doesn’t mean for every head I get a tail must follow. I can get 10 heads in a row. Does it make it is less random? No. Same can be said about the film, all the events might be compared to the 10 heads in a row. It’s unlikely, but it doesn’t make it less random and less plausible.
Furthermore, there were two statements that I strongly disagree with. It actually bothered me. The first one was when he said “well, there’s some bit of doubt attached to all of them, so I guess that adds up to reasonable doubt. ” Does he not understand what reasonable doubt means? Reasonable doubt is any hint of doubt; it doesn’t matter how large or small it is. The burden of proof is the prosecution, not the defendant. That means there is an extremely high standard for proving guilt and extremely low standard for proving innocence. At least ideally.
The second statement is “you’d have to be the jurisprudential inverse of a national lottery winner to face so many apparently damning coincidences and misidentifications.” Maybe he hasn’t done his research but eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable. Finding someone who can make a correct identification is actually more like a lottery winning, not the other way around. If you don’ believe me, I attached a link below explaining some of science behind it. You can definitely find better sources, but this is just the first one I found.
http://www.avclub.com/article/did-i12-angry-meni-get-it-wrong-83245
Lastly, they didn’t make a mistake even if they did let a guilty man free. Because it is better to let a guilty man free than to convict an innocent one.
This article by D’Angelo explains the movie, “12 Angry Men”, from a new standpoint. He seems to doubt the innocence of the young boy. According to his explanations the evidence presented in favor of innocence were not as smooth as they seemed to be. As a regular audience I would argue with his viewpoint and insist the idea that boy didn’t commit the murder. However, when I start logically analyzing the case, it is actually quite obvious that evidence provided by juror #8 didn’t have much power.
I think the decision was based merely on sympathy. The defendant was a young boy who would have been sentenced to death if proven guilty. Capital punishment is not something approved by the majority of population thus jury tried to find all the ways to prove the boy’s innocence. Also his father was introduced during the deliberations as not a very pleasant person.
I have never been a Jury member and I have always wondered how they judge. I have been present during various trials while I was doing an internship in New York Supreme Court’s Criminal Branch. In 2015, there was a case brought in front of court which was called “People vs Baasil”. Mr. Baasil(defendant) got engaged into an argument with Mr. Guzman(complainant). Mr. Baasil stabbed Mr. Guzman with a screwdriver when they met. The reason was that the defendant disliked Mr. Guzman and didn’t want to engage in conversation. All of the evidence was against the defendant. Everything seems to be very obvious. However, the defense attorney in his closing statement asked the following question as what if the complainant stabbed himself so he could revenge Mr. Baazil’s for his rude attitude. (Mr. Guzman went to hospital after an hour from the incident.) Why would somebody stabbed himself just to revenge the other person? However, the jury found Mr. Baasil innocent. Everyone was surprised because nobody expected such as outcome. To my understanding, jury sometimes judges in favor of defendants in order to avoid sending someone to jail who might have a slight chance of being innocent. It is better to be safe than sorry.
It was interesting to see Mike D’Angelo’s thought process behind the doubt of the young boy, or kid, being innocent. I do not agree with D’Angelo’s assessment. In his assessment he was criticizing why all the evidence presented to the jurors was a plausible reason to evict the “kid” as guilty of committing murder. One piece of evidence he mentioned was, “The kid’s alibi for the time of the murder was that he was at the movies, but when questioned the very same night, he couldn’t remember any details of the pictures he saw-titles, stars, anything.” I do see how D’Angelo thinks that if you are to see a movie you should be able to at least recall something from a movie you claim to have seen. It was not as if he was asked a year later to recall things from the movie which would then I assume make it harder to recall certain things. However, I could also see why the kid was having a hard time recalling maybe he was frazzled by the whole questioning and situation. Another piece of evidence he mentions was, “the murder weapon- a switchblade knife-was, by the kids own admission, identical to one he owns, and has been seen in his possession.” It is very odd that the kid claimed to have lost it that very night, what are the chances of that happening, but then again anything is possible.
I see how D’Angelo’s reasoning in his assessment can prove the kid to be guilty of the murder but I still believe that the jury made the correct decision for him being innocent. They used reasonable doubt to the best of their ability and all of the evidence they had they used to come to the most logical reason. To me it seems like they came to a conclusion with all of the consistency in the evidence that they had presented. This evidence to all of them added up in a way which showed him not being guilty. As I read about Simon’s Cognitive Shorthand’s to me the jurors relied on evaluational consistency. With this they came to their decision.
Mike D’ Angelo provides a different perspective regarding the verdict in “12 Angry Men”. D’ Angelo believes that due to the overwhelming assumptions that must be made to prove the defendant’s innocence, he does not believe he is. Just as Juror #8 dissected the case and made assumptions about what could have occurred, the same could be said for D’ Angelo. D’ Angelo inquires on the frequency that someone may scream at his/her father, which does not strengthen his argument. For example, his argument relies on the defendant actually saying “I’m going to kill you!”, but it could also have been someone else in the apartment that could have yelled this. No one actually saw the defendant say this to his father. Second, D’ Angelo says to prove he is innocent we must assume the old man did not seem him flee, which is possible based on the jurors observations of the old man’s slow walking pace and how quickly the murder happened. Third, the woman’s vision is questionable so I cannot be convinced she was able to discern the defendant’s face from across the street and while a train was passing. Fourth, if the defendant did commit the crime, I believe he would have thought of an alibi to strengthen his case for innocence, which he did not do. Additionally, it is possible that anyone could forget things after finding out a parent was just murdered. Lastly, the murder weapon that was used was proven to be easily attainable and based on the defendant’s memory who knows if he actually lost it or had left it at home. As I mentioned earlier, various assumptions can be made from the evidence the jurors received. The way the evidence is viewed, will ultimately determine if you perceive the defendant as innocent or guilty. Therefore, arguments can be made for both sides but I am still most convinced by the jurors.
While the piece almost had me convinced, ultimately I don’t believe that twelve angry men got it wrong. In some instances there is one piece of evidence that can totally clear someone’s name. Even in the movie each juror was moved by one particular piece of evidence that made the kids innocence more likely or at least created a reasonable doubt. The author suggests that in order for the kid to be innocent that all of the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution would have to be faulty. If both the eye witness testimonies are faulty then that would be more than enough for me to feel that there was room for reasonable doubt. Their testimonies were the main arguments for those who believed the kid was guilty. I thought juror 8 did a great job of poking holes in both testimony’s. The author liked comparing this case to that of OJ Simpson’s case . The cases are different on multiple levels. The Kid did not have a lawyer that compared to Johnnie Cochran who convinced the jury of his innocence in the same way. The Jurors in 12 angry men went over the evidence and came to the conclusion of his innocence without any known evidence pointing towards his innocence. With the OJ case there was a known history of violence between OJ and his ex-wife that prompted OJ to become prime suspect number 1. He also did not return to the scene of the crime ( assuming he is actually guilty ). The one thing that always bothered me is that the kid returned to his apartment, he wasn’t found or brought in for questioning. Why would a guilty person return to the scene of the crime? I just feel like the background evidence wasn’t sufficient.
I think prejudice went into most jurors presuming the kid’s guilt at the same time there was a bias on the part of Juror 8 for not wanting to find him guilty. In the end no one except for the kid truly knows if he killed his father and human limitations play a large role on how this and other cases are judged. I think the jurors did the best they could and tried to use Central Route processing, not just accepting what it was that they heard from figures of authority. They slowly went against the principles of influence and tried to reach a sound decision with all of the evidence provided. Whether or not they reached to correct decision, they can’t be faulted for trying to surpass their own biases and limitations.
Yeah, I don’t know, as entertaining a read it is, Mike D’Angelo’s argument doesn’t hold much swaying power for me. Reasonable doubt is significant concerning the question of guilt for The Kid’s case. But even more important to consider is The Kid’s ethnicity, a critical point which Henry Fonda utilizes to point out the fault of prejudiced assumptions expressed by many of the parties involved. If prejudice was at the root of the indictment, claims by the witnesses, jurors (especially Jurors 3 and 10), and the police, who rained a slurry of questionable pieces of evidence against the defendant, may be totally invalid.
This is to say nothing of the notorious inaccuracy of eyewitness accounts, which may also stem from deep-seated prejudiced beliefs. Henry Fonda underscores this notion with his analyses revealing such discrepancies as the woman’s impaired vision and the elderly man’s hindered ability to walk. In fact, numerous psychological studies on the subject have conveyed errors in eyewitness testimony are frequent and have resulted in erroneous convictions of innocent people (see: http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx). For a description on how one’s values or prejudice may influence a verdict, read this: http://www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitness-testimony.html
As y’all have mentioned above, D’Angelo’s case is, initially, at least somewhat compelling. His ability to consider the presence of confirmation bias and form his contention on that premise is admirable. However, when an individual’s life is on the line – especially when that individual is of an ethnicity that has been subject to discrimination – it is imperative that only strong, definitive evidence may be used to in such a case. In my opinion, given this circumstance, I believe every step of the judicial process leading up to the juror’s verdict failed The Kid, in that “innocence until proven guilty” is sort of thrown out the window. The mere “possibility,” as some jurors had asserted, of The Kid having carried out the murder based on the evidence provided simply does not overrule the presumption of innocence.
The points Mike D’Angelo’s makes are very compelling. Upon careful consideration, an observer would agree that all the evidence points to the boy’s guilt. The boy was overheard screaming, I will kill you, seen running from the scene of the crime, did not remember the movie he had just watched, had a knife that fit the murder weapon, alibi for time and location of murder was not convincing. These are all indisputable facts of the case. But like D’ Angelo’s assessment, juror number 8 provides an equally compelling set of probabilities that points to the boy’s innocence. But probabilities as we know are based on inferences, and inferences are educated guess. So if one were to weigh both arguments, D’Angelo’s assessment would be weighted against juror number 8 because the facts of the case are established in his assessment.
Mike D’Angelo makes a good argument and I did question the evidence too. However, the way the theme of this movie is to show that people should always look at all the facts thoroughly before making a decision. The director did want that kid to be innocent and so the all the jurors can be stuck in a room with a controversial case like this to make a set conclusive decision. Also, the movie is set in the 1960s and there is not much scientific or technological advances to test or prove the evidence. Now if this was an episode of Law & Order or a case presently, there can be more investigation into this by the police department. However, mistakes can happen and Angelo makes a good reference like O.J. Simpson that you have so much evidence against you but you are still somehow not guilty. I mean I did not understand throughout the whole movie why the boy could not remember the name of the movies and the actors like D’Angelo states. I would even if a traumatic thing happened to me that night. It was quite peculiar that it was the same switch knife as well. I did enjoy seeing Fonda fighting for more thorough analysis for the case. I have mixed feelings now after reading this but I would have to rely on technology and scientific proof to prove the boy is innocent or guilty.
And I would say, GO HOME D’Angelo! Of course, 12 Angry men is a scripted film intended to stir up the minds of those who are rather skeptical of the processes of jury duty or even how cases are handled based on “evidence”; however, I believe D’Angelo has some internal battles he needs to get over with. I base my opinion on the mere statement of innocent until proven guilty. The evidence was presented but it was then refuted by, yes, one juror at the beginning, but it only took one to provide some insight and clear thinking to the other jurors. D’Angelo could have mentioned 100 reasons of ways how the evidence could have been interpreted otherwise, but that is what we call circumstantial. Each and every piece of evidence countered by Fonda has a plausible argument and in instances even more than plausible – just merely logical. Perhaps the fact that I am reading about other ways of how the evidence could have been interpreted versus the film seen can play a role in how I am judging D’Angelo’s piece. Visuals tend to have a greater role in persuasion than simple reading/writing. Take Colin Powel’s speech at the U.N. Security Council meeting. Do you think his speech and arguments would have been as compelling if there were no photos or recordings? I think not. However, I strongly believe, on a more neutral level, that Fonda’s arguments outweigh D’Angelo’s arguments.
I agree with D’Angelo that the boy was guilty. From a legal standpoint, jurors are required to look at the totality of the evidence, not each piece in a vacuum. However, any good defense attorney would do as Fonda (Juror #8) did: undermine each piece to create a shroud of doubt over the Kid’s guilt. As D’Angelo states, it is highly unlikely that every single piece of evidence was independently wrong. When considered altogether, the evidence pointed to the Kid’s guilt. I appreciate though how Fonda disrupted the other jurors’ confirmation bias and made them consider that the Kid might’ve been innocent. However, in light of all the evidence considered together, I agree with D’Angelo that the Kid was guilty.
• Being a juror at a murder case is very complex. As mentioned in the film, who are we to give someone the death sentence? Mike D’Angelo questions “So what if they probably let a guilty man go free?” I’d much rather let a guilty man go free than kill an innocent person. The evidence presented in 12 Angry Men, are not concrete enough to state that the boy is guilty. What if one of the witnesses was trying to set the boy up, and made up some of the ‘observations’ that they claimed to witness? ‘ The murder weapon—a switchblade knife—was, by The Kid’s own admission, identical to one he owns, and had been seen in his possession. The Kid claimed to have lost his knife that very night.’ What if he did lose the knife and someone who knew he had the knife bought the identical one to frame him? Since he was a boy from the slums and perhaps reckless (according to how they described him in the film) someone wanted him out of the neighborhood. I believe that the evidence is not concrete enough to draw the conclusion whether the kid was guilty or not. Mike D’Angelo’s theory is that, what is the probability of all of this happening and the boy not being guilty? I don’t want to send someone to their death sentence based on probability. I want finger prints, witnesses that actually saw the killing in the same room or something with substance in order to label the boy guilty.
I think the 12 angry men got it right in terms of reasoning. Going through several of the pieces of evidence you could quickly determine reasoning on the part of juror #8. The two main pieces of evidence where probability works in favor of the defendant were disqualifying testimony from the old man and from the woman across the street. As Juror 8 noted it is hard to see someone through a train directly stab someone in the night across the street. Even 50 years later with improved transit, that would be a hard call to make. The other piece of information was the old man hearing everything that happened upstairs by the train. I’m jaded in that I have lived near exposed subway tracks my entire life and know that they are too loud to hear anything. The other parts of reasoning in terms of profiling the people on the stand were admissible.
I think a key part of the deliberation was Juror 8’s wager to the group. What would have happened if the Juror 9 didn’t give him any support?
By finding reasonable doubt in each of the evidence presented and acquitted the boy, I think the jurors have done their jobs. D’Angelo’s argument is based on the law of probability. He essentially argued that the probability that all these coincidences happened on the same night extremely slim, and thus therefore the 12 Angry men got it wrong. In a Jan 2015 Economist article, the odd of an airplane crash is about 1 in 5.4 millions. If an airplane crash could occurs, the coincidence of the evidences in the film could occurs.
The argument in in the article is : whether the jurors made the correct verdict. Mike D’Angelo makes a case that some of the evidence is coincidence, like the Kid having the same knife as the killer and loosing the same night. Yes he gives argument that the Kid is guilty, however jurors came to conclusion he is not, due to reasonable doubt. I think there always will be question whether the Kid killed his father or not, even though the jurors had not guilty verdict. However the reasoning of the Juror 8, is sound and others come around. Maybe the juror #8 is just that good, or the facts he present are making sense to the other jurors.