The film is very simple, is how a jury decides a murder. First of all, this is not an ordinary murder case. The crime proposed by prosecutors was first-degree murder. If prosecutors charge a "first degree murder" charge, that means:
Sufficient evidence must be presented, not only to prove that the suspect committed the murder, but also to prove that he premeditated the murder. This is because the final verdict of the jury is not "guilty" or "innocent", but "convicted" or "not guilty". If the prosecution makes only one charge, the jury's verdict is called an "all yes or no" verdict. That is, if you are only charged with "first-degree murder" and you can only prove homicide and not conspiracy, the jury will still say, "Not guilty of first-degree murder" if the prosecutor doesn't charge anything else The charges, the only charges were denied again, and the perpetrator could go home. So, it's a very tricky question for prosecutors. If a charge of first-degree murder is filed and the crime is finally convicted, the criminal who killed two lives can get a heavier punishment, for example, the death penalty, or life imprisonment without parole. But at the same time, the stakes for prosecutors are much greater. If the charge of second-degree murder is to accuse him of killing someone out of control in the midst of a quarrel or the like, of course, it is much less stressful for prosecutors to seek "conviction", but it is possible to seek The punishment will be much lighter, not only the sentence is shorter, but also the offender can try to apply for parole after a period of imprisonment. This is obviously unwilling to the prosecutor.
The above content is from:
So the jury's job is not to prove the murder, but to "prick". If the murder cannot be proven innocent, the charge takes effect. In this way, 12 people voted many times and finally reached a consensus. In the film, there is a lot of discussion about the evidence, which should actually exist in the cross-examination of the court. However, due to the omissions of the prosecution and the defense, the evidence was not properly screened, so there were wonderful performances and discussions in the movie. This is what gives us a glimpse into how the jury system works. In any case, it is necessary to abandon prejudice and consider problems without preconceived ideas. This is the premise of achieving fairness and justice. If we can't do this, what can we talk about democratization?
View more about 12 Angry Men reviews
