MovieChat Forums > 12 Angry Men (1957) Discussion > If the boy wouldn't have been sent to de...

If the boy wouldn't have been sent to death row, would they have been more inclined to vote guilty?

posted 4 years ago by hans (68)
1 reply | jump to latest

They say how if they vote guilty, the boy get's the electric chair. No other outcome. Juror 8 makes a point that's the reason to devote time to the case, and that's why he originally voted not guilty. And others agree towards the end, that with the doubt, they can't send a man to die.

But let's say voting guilty wouldn't send the boy to the chair. What if he would just go to prison for 25 years? Would most of the jurors, especially number 8, still vote not guilty because of the holes they poked in the evidence?

I think most of them would have voted guilty and stuck to it. Rewatching the movie, a lot of the evidence is circumstantial. but the holes they bring up are also pretty reaching. When you're condemning a man to die, finding a second knife exactly the same does cause doubt. But if he would just go to prison, I don't think most of them would accept that big of a coincidence. Same with the old man and the woman who witnessed it. Juror number 8 might have stuck to not guilty, and maybe the older juror, but the rest I think stick vote guilty.

[–] Adam60z (3774) 4 years ago

Considering it's NYC even in 1957 the death penalty was rare (the last execution carried out in New York was 1963). But if you ever watch Law and Order (the original---I hate the spinoffs), there often is a plea deal, which would exclude the jury. In any case had this gone to jury with a 25 year option I don't think it would affect the one hold out, Henry Fonda. One thing this play/film shows (possibly non-intentionally) is how utterly ridiculous the jury system is. 12 random people and if the defendant is very lucky he'll get Henry Fonda on it...a one in a thousand chance at least! Face it, most people are like the other 11 and wouldn't give it a second thought unless forced to.
I think the point it was trying to make was how great the jury system is, how 12 random people could come to a common verdict. However to me it shows the opposite. Any attorney will tell you a jury is always a crapshoot..i.e. guilt or innocent doesn't matter, it's how the two sides play the game. True other countries are worse, but that doesn't excuse our flawed system in anyway, with so many innocent people in jail, so many guilty not.