Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 40 views

    Prompt 1: Pre-Disposing Factors Promoting Institutional Cynicism

    Uploaded by

    Allan Onyango
    Take-home assignment: 12 Angry Men Please answer the following questions in short paragraphs. The answer to each question should be between 1 and 2 pages long. Please type your answer in MLA format, using 12 New Times Roman font. Don’t forget to write your name, number the pages and staple them. 1. Dianne Martin writes in “The police role in wrongful convictions” that “Miscarriages of justice are often rooted in the far more common problem of institutional cynicism and neglect” (p. 79) and she later on elaborates that the predisposing factors that promote institutional cynicism and neglect are the following facts “significant pressure on authorities to resolve with a conviction, the accused was a marginalized outsider or the case rested on suspect or inherently unreliable evidence” (p. 83). After carefully watching the movie, describe in detail which elements (if any) during the trial correspond to these factors. Which one of the three factors do you think plays a more important role in the deliberations? Please support your answer with reasons drawn from the movie. 2. According to Parker et al., “people of color are more likely to conform to a criminal stereotype and hence may at risk of being of being arrested and convicted on weaker evidence than whites are.” After carefully watching the movie, describe at least three instances of stereotyping that occur during the course of the trial and show how these instances of stereotyping color the lenses and influence the judgements of some of the characters. Which instance is the most problematic according to you and why? Please justify your answer. 3. In “Whodunit?”, Lofquist maintains that what he calls ‘escalating commitment’, which is the view that “motivations to continue developing and selling a product escalate rapidly over time (…) while reasons to abandon it accumulate slowly” (p. 176) often plays an important role in the occurrence of wrongful convictions insofar as it explain how actors become increasingly committed to certain courses of actions. After highlighting how this notion is useful to explain the initial behavior and words of some of the members of the jury (please be specific), please show how some jury members act in order to force others as the trial unfolds to de-escalate progressively their commitments. 4. After reading carefully “More than a reasonable doubt?” and watching carefully the movie, please sum up briefly the evidence that was used to indict Frank Ewing and as well as the evidence used to indict the boy in the movie. In what sense was the evidence in both cases potentially misinterpreted to make a case for their being found guilty? According to you, are there common mechanisms or reasons involving the interpretation of the available evidence in both cases that explain why the prosecution was confident of their being guilty? If so, which ones are they and how do they function?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Prompt 1: Pre-Disposing Factors Promoting Institutional Cynicism

    Uploaded by

    Allan Onyango
    40 views4 pages
    Take-home assignment: 12 Angry Men Please answer the following questions in short paragraphs. The answer to each question should be between 1 and 2 pages long. Please type your answer in MLA format, using 12 New Times Roman font. Don’t forget to write your name, number the pages and staple them. 1. Dianne Martin writes in “The police role in wrongful convictions” that “Miscarriages of justice are often rooted in the far more common problem of institutional cynicism and neglect” (p. 79) and she later on elaborates that the predisposing factors that promote institutional cynicism and neglect are the following facts “significant pressure on authorities to resolve with a conviction, the accused was a marginalized outsider or the case rested on suspect or inherently unreliable evidence” (p. 83). After carefully watching the movie, describe in detail which elements (if any) during the trial correspond to these factors. Which one of the three factors do you think plays a more important role in the deliberations? Please support your answer with reasons drawn from the movie. 2. According to Parker et al., “people of color are more likely to conform to a criminal stereotype and hence may at risk of being of being arrested and convicted on weaker evidence than whites are.” After carefully watching the movie, describe at least three instances of stereotyping that occur during the course of the trial and show how these instances of stereotyping color the lenses and influence the judgements of some of the characters. Which instance is the most problematic according to you and why? Please justify your answer. 3. In “Whodunit?”, Lofquist maintains that what he calls ‘escalating commitment’, which is the view that “motivations to continue developing and selling a product escalate rapidly over time (…) while reasons to abandon it accumulate slowly” (p. 176) often plays an important role in the occurrence of wrongful convictions insofar as it explain how actors become increasingly committed to certain courses of actions. After highlighting how this notion is useful to explain the initial behavior and words of some of the members of the jury (please be specific), please show how some jury members act in order to force others as the trial unfolds to de-escalate progressively their commitments. 4. After reading carefully “More than a reasonable doubt?” and watching carefully the movie, please sum up briefly the evidence that was used to indict Frank Ewing and as well as the evidence used to indict the boy in the movie. In what sense was the evidence in both cases potentially misinterpreted to make a case for their being found guilty? According to you, are there common mechanisms or reasons involving the interpretation of the available evidence in both cases that explain why the prosecution was confident of their being guilty? If so, which ones are they and how do they function?

    Original Title

    Movie Review (2)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Take-home assignment: 12 Angry Men Please answer the following questions in short paragraphs. The answer to each question should be between 1 and 2 pages long. Please type your answer in MLA format, using 12 New Times Roman font. Don’t forget to write your name, number the pages and staple them. 1. Dianne Martin writes in “The police role in wrongful convictions” that “Miscarriages of justice are often rooted in the far more common problem of institutional cynicism and neglect” (p. 79) and she later on elaborates that the predisposing factors that promote institutional cynicism and neglect are the following facts “significant pressure on authorities to resolve with a conviction, the accused was a marginalized outsider or the case rested on suspect or inherently unreliable evidence” (p. 83). After carefully watching the movie, describe in detail which elements (if any) during the trial correspond to these factors. Which one of the three factors do you think plays a more important role in the deliberations? Please support your answer with reasons drawn from the movie. 2. According to Parker et al., “people of color are more likely to conform to a criminal stereotype and hence may at risk of being of being arrested and convicted on weaker evidence than whites are.” After carefully watching the movie, describe at least three instances of stereotyping that occur during the course of the trial and show how these instances of stereotyping color the lenses and influence the judgements of some of the characters. Which instance is the most problematic according to you and why? Please justify your answer. 3. In “Whodunit?”, Lofquist maintains that what he calls ‘escalating commitment’, which is the view that “motivations to continue developing and selling a product escalate rapidly over time (…) while reasons to abandon it accumulate slowly” (p. 176) often plays an important role in the occurrence of wrongful convictions insofar as it explain how actors become increasingly committed to certain courses of actions. After highlighting how this notion is useful to explain the initial behavior and words of some of the members of the jury (please be specific), please show how some jury members act in order to force others as the trial unfolds to de-escalate progressively their commitments. 4. After reading carefully “More than a reasonable doubt?” and watching carefully the movie, please sum up briefly the evidence that was used to indict Frank Ewing and as well as the evidence used to indict the boy in the movie. In what sense was the evidence in both cases potentially misinterpreted to make a case for their being found guilty? According to you, are there common mechanisms or reasons involving the interpretation of the available evidence in both cases that explain why the prosecution was confident of their being guilty? If so, which ones are they and how do they function?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    40 views4 pages

    Prompt 1: Pre-Disposing Factors Promoting Institutional Cynicism

    Uploaded by

    Allan Onyango
    Take-home assignment: 12 Angry Men Please answer the following questions in short paragraphs. The answer to each question should be between 1 and 2 pages long. Please type your answer in MLA format, using 12 New Times Roman font. Don’t forget to write your name, number the pages and staple them. 1. Dianne Martin writes in “The police role in wrongful convictions” that “Miscarriages of justice are often rooted in the far more common problem of institutional cynicism and neglect” (p. 79) and she later on elaborates that the predisposing factors that promote institutional cynicism and neglect are the following facts “significant pressure on authorities to resolve with a conviction, the accused was a marginalized outsider or the case rested on suspect or inherently unreliable evidence” (p. 83). After carefully watching the movie, describe in detail which elements (if any) during the trial correspond to these factors. Which one of the three factors do you think plays a more important role in the deliberations? Please support your answer with reasons drawn from the movie. 2. According to Parker et al., “people of color are more likely to conform to a criminal stereotype and hence may at risk of being of being arrested and convicted on weaker evidence than whites are.” After carefully watching the movie, describe at least three instances of stereotyping that occur during the course of the trial and show how these instances of stereotyping color the lenses and influence the judgements of some of the characters. Which instance is the most problematic according to you and why? Please justify your answer. 3. In “Whodunit?”, Lofquist maintains that what he calls ‘escalating commitment’, which is the view that “motivations to continue developing and selling a product escalate rapidly over time (…) while reasons to abandon it accumulate slowly” (p. 176) often plays an important role in the occurrence of wrongful convictions insofar as it explain how actors become increasingly committed to certain courses of actions. After highlighting how this notion is useful to explain the initial behavior and words of some of the members of the jury (please be specific), please show how some jury members act in order to force others as the trial unfolds to de-escalate progressively their commitments. 4. After reading carefully “More than a reasonable doubt?” and watching carefully the movie, please sum up briefly the evidence that was used to indict Frank Ewing and as well as the evidence used to indict the boy in the movie. In what sense was the evidence in both cases potentially misinterpreted to make a case for their being found guilty? According to you, are there common mechanisms or reasons involving the interpretation of the available evidence in both cases that explain why the prosecution was confident of their being guilty? If so, which ones are they and how do they function?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 4

    Surname 1

    Name

    Instructor

    Course

    Date

    Movie review: “The 12 Angry Men”

    Prompt 1: Pre-disposing factors promoting institutional cynicism

    During the trial in the “12 Angry Men” movie, two factors were depicted to dictate the

    way judgment was being made in the courtroom. Precisely, the institutional cynicism and neglect

    were expressed by the fact that the defendant came from a marginalized group and also the case

    had a heavy reliance on the unreliable pieces of evidence. The 18 years old boy accused of

    stabbing his father is being considered by Juror 10 as not only a lair and wild but also a

    dangerous person because he comes from a slum background (Lumet).

    On the other hand, the evidence presented by the elderly witness suffering from stroke

    and the woman who claimed to have witnessed the death scene through the window of her

    bedroom are controversial and lack logic of justifying the defendant’s guilt. Therefore, inherently

    unreliable evidence plays a more important role in the deliberations (Lumet). This is because the

    elderly man was suffering from stroke and could not have made it in time to witness the stabbing

    of the bereaved by the accused. Also, this witness did not hear the conversation at the murder

    scene because of the noise made from an elevated train that was passing at the time of the

    murder. This assertion made Jurors 2 and 6 change their votes to “not guilty.”Elsewhere, the

    impressions woman witness makes in court and the logic behind lack of enough time to put on

    glasses before witnessing the murder are enough facts to make Jurors 4, 10 and 12 change their

    perceptions towards the murder case (Lumet). Nonetheless, the aforementioned evidence had
    Surname 2

    made 11 Jurors to pass a “guilty” vote on the accused before the discussion of the reliability of

    this evidence.

    Prompt 2: Stereotyping

    The first instance of stereotyping in the movies occurs when Juror 10 expresses his mind

    that the accused is from the slum background which makes him be a liar as well as wild and

    dangerous. However, this claim does not impact much on the proceedings of the discussion at

    this stage. The most problematic instance is the second stereotyping scene because it is

    characterized by criticisms and influences the path that the case takes. When Juror 3 openly

    criticizes Juror 5 of having sympathy to slum children, the discussion takes another turn (Lumet).

    This second stereotyping is directed to Juror 5 who happens to come from a slum background

    just like the accused person. The significance of this instance is that it enables the audience to see

    that Juror 9 has understood the need for the discussion of the Juror 8’s claim and the switched

    vote from “guilty” to “not guilty” presents a problematic scene marred with stereotyping

    accusations in the movie.

    However, the last stereotyping incidence is presented exclusively that it is used to justify

    the innocence of the accused boy. In this scene, Juror 5 explains why it is impossible for a

    shorter person like the accused to make a downward stab in a taller person of the father’s height

    using the switchblade (Lumet). Having grown up in the midst of knife fights, Juror 5 explains the

    exact way switchblades are used during fights in the slums. The experiment, though

    characterized with stereotyping elements, makes some Jurors confirm the innocence of the

    accused boy (Lumet). Therefore, it can be said that stereotyping plays an important role in

    determining the reliability of the evidence presented in the court to make the defendant guilty.
    Surname 3

    Prompt 3: De-escalating initial commitments

    Initially, 11 Jurors out of 12 voted unanimously that the defendant is guilty and deserved

    the death penalty. It is only one jury member, Juror 8, who voted in opposite direction to open

    room for the discussion of the evidence presented in the court. Notably, the eleven members on

    the “guilty” side were committed to their course of actions and could not just readily change their

    perceptions even if after understanding the factual elements concerning the evidence presented in

    the court (Lumet). However, Juror 8 initiates the process of forcing others to de-escalate their

    commitments as the trial unfolds progressively. Firstly, he explains his points on the reasonable

    doubt concerning the boy’s guilt and requests for a secret ballot that he abstains from. At this

    stage, Juror 9 de-escalates his initial commitment and believes a discussion is needed.

    The argument that Juror 8 presents about the reliability of the elderly man witness is

    convincing enough to make Jurors 5, 11, 2 and 6 de-escalate their initial commitments as well.

    Besides, Jurors 12, 10, and 4 are convinced by the Juror 8’s argument that the evidence of the

    woman witness lacks logical reasons to make the boy guilty before de-escalating their initial

    commitments (Lumet). Elsewhere, it is Juror 11 who makes Juror 7 understand the facts

    concerning g the case under discussion hence de-escalating the initial commitments. However,

    Juror 3 who is the last one to de-escalate his initial commitment is forced by the reality that it is

    proper to follow correct judicial provisions while making jurisdictions and not personal emotions

    (Lumet). This Juror has a spoilt relationship with his son, and that is why he wants the defendant

    to be guilty and eventually be punished as a way of teaching young people a lesson.


    Surname 4

    Work Cited

    Lumet, Sidney, director. 12 Angry Men. YouTube, Henry Fonda Reginald Rose, 1957,

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dosg0p7LAB4.

    You might also like