Kristian Jacob Abad Lora H.W. in Introduction to Law Atty.

Gerry Robertson Mira

JD-I

July 22, 2013

University of Cebu

Sweet Justice is Served

A Film Review on Sidney Lumets 12 Angry Men

How sweet and fulfilling it is when justice is rendered to those who deserve it; but, for justice to be sweet, it must not cause injustice to another who has also rights recognized by the law. This is what I have thought after watching 12 Angry Men (1957) an old yet ever-relevant film of all times as its story may happen to any person regardless of socio-economic status, age, race, gender or generation. Sidney Lumet's 12 Angry Men is all about twelve American jurors of different ages and occupations who were tasked to render a verdict on a criminal case charged against an 18-year old boy who was accused of killing his father. In a preliminary judgment which they agreed to have, all of them voted to declare the accused guilty of murder of which, the punishment was death sentence, except for one juror who is the main protagonist of the film. The main protagonist believed that there was enough reasonable doubt to dismiss the case and acquit the accused. Thereafter, he began expressing his doubts on the testimonies of the two witnesses which caught the attention of his fellow jurors. In the long run, the main protagonist had moved the other jurors, who initially favored in convicting the accused, to think critically on the case at hand. Slowly, he was able to create doubt as well in the minds of the other jurors who later sided with him to dismiss the case, even the juror who stood firm on his first judgment until he was the only one voting for the conviction of the accused. The film ended with the jurors unanimously declaring the accused not guilty, reversing the results of their preliminary judgment. At first, I thought that I would be bored with the film since it was in grayscale as it is an old film but the deliberation of the jurors turned out to be like a detective film which is one of the film genres that I like. Such deliberation has provided me a clearer and more concrete picture of what "reasonable doubt" is. In the first minutes of the film where the main protagonist, interestingly, replied that he is uncertain of the innocence of the accused when asked by a fellow juror, the film began to illumine me on the idea of "reasonable doubt". Usually, our normal

reaction to such remark from a person in opposition in circumstances wherein we think there are only two sides of the issue is not to support him/her but to judge him/her, quickly, that he/she would lose in the argumentation. Our minds are too polarized that we unconsciously ignore that there are issues where there are more than two sides. Actually, the goal of the main protagonist was not to prove the innocence of the accused but to show to his fellow jurors that, in the case at bar, there was a reasonable doubt which, in criminal cases, is a justification to acquit an accused. It is in cases such as this where "uncertainty" is meritorious. Meanwhile, in the middle of the heated exchanges among the jurors, the "Possitivist Theory of Law" emerged despite the "classical" one which was in the mindset of the eleven jurors at the start of the deliberation. The critical and scientific approach of the jurors, initiated by the main protagonist in discussing the case, shows that the commission of a crime may have underlying reasons, factors or circumstances that may be mitigating or exempting as compared to a classical thought which strictly considers a crime a crime that is ought to be penalized regardless of motives or underlying reasons, factors or circumstances. I agree with the main protagonist when he remarked that in cases, usually in criminal cases, where the life of the accused is at stake, jurors must be very careful as they play as gods controlling the life of the accused. It must be established that the accused is really guilty beyond reasonable doubt to convict him/her; otherwise, the case should be dismissed, acquitting the accused. A wrong must not be corrected with a wrong, says an old adage. Another important point that I have thought while watching the film is the effect of the justice system per se in effective administration of justice. In the justice systems of some countries such as America, it is a jury, composed of more than one juror, that will analyze the case and render the judgment. The judge's role is only to moderate during the trial of the case. I adhere to this kind of setup because, just like in the film, all possible sides of the issues are exhausted and presented on the table, which are contributory in rendering a sound judgment. It may take too much time but, at least, the resulting judgment is, if not the right judgment, closer to the absolutely right judgment. It may not be time-efficient but comparing it with our justice system, even though we only have a one-man jury (the judge himself), it would still take years for an ordinary case to be resolved. Nonetheless, another con would be that in a jury setup, members vary from time to time and it will not be, at all times, that the members of a jury are wise ones and some may be influenced by those with power.

On the other hand, with respect to the technical aspects of the film, the film, indeed, needed no other audio-visual effects; its monotonous ambiance was wisely applied so that what would be given more focus is the meat of the film - the seriousness of the story, the plot, the lines or conversations of the characters, the logic of the arguments of the characters, the law and the concept of "reasonable doubt". I was also amazed on how the makers of the film played with the setting of the story. The jurors were placed in a room or environment that was hot and humid and the sweat on their faces depict the complexity of the case they were deliberating. On a final note, the ending of the film, where the main protagonist and his fellow juror, who was the oldest among them yet, equipped with wit and keen eyes, parted ways with smiles on their faces, shows the sweetness of the fruit of justice. It, then, reminded me of the quote engraved on the faade of the New York County Supreme Court building shown at the opening of the film which expressed that, "The true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government." With this, the film moved and inspired me to continue and persevere in studying law despite the challenges until I become a lawyer because the real challenges in the legal field are not present in law books, recitations and examinations but in the real practice of law. Although many cases are complicated to solve, I believe that the fruits of pursuing and attaining justice for those who deserve it are sweeter than the fruits of graduating from law school and passing the bar examinations and I want to taste such fruits, not undermining, though, the latter fruits.