I'm not saying he didn't do it, I'm just saying... He had a rough childhood

>circunstancial evidence
first of all, learn to spell. secondly, there's a reason circumstantial evidence doesn't hold a lot of water in real life court cases, you know

Proof in law terms
>proof
>n. confirmation of a fact by evidence. In a trial, proof is what the trier of the fact (jury or judge without a jury) needs to become satisfied that there is "a preponderance of the evidence" in civil (non-criminal) cases and the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal prosecutions. However, each alleged fact must be proved separately
>EACH ALLEGED FACT MUST BE PROVED SEPARATELY
So it's not about collecting a bunch of mere assumptions and stringing a headcanon situation together, but literally PROVING every single point one by one on their own. If you can't do that, you have no case.

If proof was what you imply it is, then two roasties crying on twitter that somebody glanced at her wrong 12 years ago should automatically be taken as proof of rape.

>simmilar circunstancial

Attached: 1556407275834.png (480x287, 83K)

>Europoors don't understand circumstantial evidence
>Europoors don't understand "innocent until proven guilty"
To be fair, most Americans don't either. These threads are always good for a laugh.

Attached: bombnewyork.jpg (690x397, 33K)

You think a criminal would stop being a criminal or be "less of a criminal" if he thinks he can die while doing his crime? Why are there still criminals in places with death sentences then?

Why did juror 3 change his vote? I don't see what ripping up a photo of his son has to do with the trial.

There are significantly less, or because they think they can get away with it
There were significantly less rapes in America when people knew you could be hanging from a tree if you touched a woman wrong

>Europoors don't understand "innocent until proven guilty"
considering how bloodthirsty and >muh justice Americans are regardless of the actual facts, you'd think they'd like to see innocent people executed

Fail-Safe is such a God tier film it should be played in schools as mandatory viewing.
Criminally underappreciated.

Attached: FAIL-SAFE.jpg (3000x1688, 2.2M)

plenty of people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence alone

>There are significantly less
lol

America leads the world in crime AND executions. The Death Penalty is proven to not be an effective detterent.

this movie falls apart when you realize the villain is a negro. like, why am I supposed to give a shit?

Look at your own conviction rates, burger. American justice is a joke

>still pushing the Bush era "le americans are violent racists who hurt innocent black men" meme

I thought they showed the kid in the very beginning

i had to sit on a jury once, everyone just wanted to get out of there and we voted guilty without any deliberation lel

honeslty i don't care if it's not a deterrent. if you're caught red-handed committing a cold blooded murder or the evidence is significantly overwhelming you should just be put down. you forfeit your life when you make an attempt on another's. there's no point in trying to rehabilitate people with no sense of morality or conscious and i'm not sure why they deserve mercy when they provided none.

>f you're caught red-handed
Protip: the vast majority aren't.

wrong. This show shows how retarded the jury system is and made a complete mockery out of the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Lumet clearly has no clue what reasonable doubt entails. Pro tip: There is not reasonable doubt in 12 angry men.

Also, Fonda goes out of his way to act as investigator and defendant for the accused. He brings outside evidence that was not presented in court into the jury room. He makes completely bogus arguments like
>if you cant remember the pre-film show at the cinema you went to last month, that means its reasonable that the accused cant even remember what film he supposedly went to see the day prior to his arrest

and he also actively argues to reduce the reliability of witnesses in court with arguments like "he was old so he was probably lying because he wanted attention", nevermind that the defence never questioned the witness' accountability.

Its a complete joke movie and only a pleb would believe that it makes a good argument for "innocent until proven guilty" or of how the juror system works. Fonda would have been kicked off the jury as soon as he brought in the knife he had acquired himself after the trial.

This. There are some horrific crimes, where violent apes rape toddlers to death and burn a family alive while laughing, I just want to see them die the most horrible death.
But no, they get a slap on the wrist, or stay on death row for 50 years

>rehabilitate people
the point of a 20+ year/life/death sentence is certainly not rehabilitation

>rape toddlers to death and burn a family alive while laughing
that's crazy white dude shit, not "violent apes."
or it's cartel murders.

>they get a slap on the wrist
show me one instance of child rape and mass murder ending in a "slap on the wrist"

You know witness reports are valid evidence, right? In 12 angry men, 2 witnesses who had no reason by the jury to be deemed unreliable, as no arguments against their accountability had been presented in court, stated that they saw and heard the accused in circumstances that connected him to then murder. He also had no alibi, having openly lied to the police about going to a movie. No one forgets what movie they went to see a few days ago.

go ask a normalfag couple on saturday what is the title of the dumb C tier jumpscare horror flick they went to see in a cinema the day before

Look at what they do in africa or southern states. Just because it never goes beyond local newspapers doesn't mean it didn't happen. It will make your stomach churn

>that's crazy white dude shit
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom

>America leads the world in crime
no it doesn't

>No one forgets what movie they went to see a few days ago.
I think you might be applying a bit of modern logic here, not saying I knew exactly what it was like, but cinemas were a lot different back then.

People would walk into a movie as it was playing. It was reasonable back then to forget.

Was the whole thing just a prank by Juror 8? Was he simply bored, or a master ruseman?

>him committing the crime is a result of institutional racism

Cmon

>You know witness reports are valid evidence, right?
Not hard evidence.
>they saw and heard the accused in circumstances
In which circumstances?
>No one forgets what movie they went to see a few days ago.
Also add the fact that back then there were no trailers or ads for any non blockbuster flicks, you mostly went in theaters completely blind as a regular Joe normalfag picking what movie you're going to watch right there on the spot..

dave catching here, not saying goodbye, just sayin....

>He didn't do it, he's from the tribe, and we do nothing of such kind of disgusting goy things!
Woah, Lumet wtf

>But your wife is in New York, sir!
>We'll use our own nukes then! It will be faster!

>t. absolute brainlet

The kid couldnt remember anything from the movie, not even what it was about, let alone the title.

Its fine if its a nigger

I love when eurotrash say "America has the highest X!! We are so much better!!"

Wait until you have 15%+ nig population, if you disaggregate along racial lines white Americans perform as well or better then Europeans on crime stats.

>2 witnesses who had no reason by the jury to be deemed unreliable
the jurors demonstrated pretty explicitly why their testimony was suspect

that said, is that something the jurors are actually allowed to question and debate about? i thought they were limited to only whatever was discussed in the court proceedings. if the defense attorney didn't bring up the old woman's eyesight & hearing or the old dude's limp, they wouldn't be able to base decisions or conclusions on it.

Germany has almost 10% brown population and it's nowhere near crime, murder and prison stats as US

I think France has even more than 10%, and it's basically the same

>"You know how those people are."

Attached: ayylien.jpg (1600x1200, 216K)

Maybe he saw a Bergman film.

The moment he stab the table with the second knife was the moment the jury would been discarded and new jury gathered

>in what circumstances?

Have you even seen the film? An old man, a neighbor, testified he saw the accused flee the scene right after hearing the murder victim scream.

A woman testified that she saw the accused stab the victim to death.

Neither of those witnesses have any reasonable motive to lie in court. Their testimonies were not challenged and they were seen as accountable witnesses during the trial. To set these testimonies aside is ridiculous. People who are reputable citizen dont sign up to lie in court. Eye witness reports are one of the strongest evidences there is today. It was considered even stronger back in the 50s when technical evidence gathering was limited.

He was clearly guilty and should have been found guilty by the jury. If there was reasonable doubt in this case then there can never not be reasonable doubt.

I just wish you autists were as passionate about films themselves as you are passionate about arguing about whatever moral/history/political subject.
We could talk just about the editing or the closing-in framing of 12 Angry Men in multiple +300 post threads, but no one will make even one post about any filmmaking element at all.

This goes for any thread about any film, boiling down every single film just into political plot points and that's it. Films are not just wikipedia plot summaries cmon

Attached: 1515104294008.png (917x871, 139K)

Was the doubt rrasonable, though

Turks aren't close to guns as nigs are in America, and the kinife/rape crimes get hide by the press and goverment like the rest of the EU does.

kek

Fuck off, they are discussing the film. Would you rather have a bunch of capeshit and waifu threads? This is way better.

Ok, you convinced me. Downloading now.

>and the kinife/rape crimes get hide by the press and goverment like the rest of the EU does.

blatant lie. give a single example faggot

Jurors are supposed to deal with the arguments presented in court. If the defense does not question a witness so their testimony seems unreliable then the testimony should be treated as near truth.

Fondas arguments against the woman are retarded "She wore glasses, therefore she probably cant see and made up a story that will get a man executed" and against then old man even more so "hes probably just old and wants attention". The argument against the woman, if presented in court, could have led to a clarification about her sight and if she used her glasses when she saw what happened. The argument against the man would have been shut down as laughable and speculative unless he had solid evidence that the man had lied under similar circumstances before.

its pasta newfag

Fuck me for not being on Yea Forums all day, everyday.

What's the point of treading the same grounds as every other discussion about 12 Angry Men? If you want to read "le did u know the director turned up the sounds and used tighter shots to make the film more claustrophobic as it went on :O", then go see the thousands of Reddit threads with that title. I like that Yea Forums and Yea Forums are one of the last places that balance non-Liberal viewpoints with the occasional coherent discussion.

>An old man, a neighbor, testified he saw the accused flee the scene right after hearing the murder victim scream.
And that old man suffered a stroke and could barely walk, and then by his apartment layout it was proven he couldn't possibly get from his bed to the window in those fifteen seconds.
>A woman testified that she saw the accused stab the victim to death.
And she witnessed that without her glasses that she needs to see.
>Their testimonies were not challenged and they were seen as accountable witnesses during the trial
Yes, the trial didn't account that the women needs glasses to see.
>Eye witness reports are one of the strongest evidences there is today
Absolute headcanon.

Just watch the film again my dude.

that's why they are hided, duh.

Why didn't they do this:
>youtu.be/uqH_Y1TupoQ

Were they retarded?

If there had only been a few things pointing to him being responsible then yeah maybe there would be reasonable doubt for the case, but when there's so many things in the film pointing to the kid doing it it goes way beyond reasonable doubt. The juror dismisses some pretty damning evidence on really flimsy grounds, like dismissing the old man's testimony because he assumed he wanted attention. He also brings up a bunch of things that surely the defense would have raised during the trial if they would have been favourable to their case, but he assumes that they didn't because they were incompetent.

I like the movie's message and I think it's a good watch but I think a lot of people who watch it jump the gun and say of course the kid was innocent. The best decision this movie made was not to give a definitive answer as to whether he was actually guilty of the crime or not.

>like dismissing the old man's testimony because he assumed he wanted attention.
And the fact that he had a stroke, could barely walk and that his bed on the other side of the window where he supposedly saw the entire thing.

*his bed was on the other side of the apartment of the window

>Brings a concealed weapon into the courthouse

>Hey man I'm just saying it's technically physically possible that all of these people independently participated in a conspiracy of thought to convict this one kid for no reason even though he has no alibi and the police found no evidence that would point to another suspect
>"Reasonable doubt"

Actually he's just a crying liberal grandstanding for attention. He wouldn't give that brown kid a dollar if he saw him begging for food in the streets.

gay

The way they determined that he couldn't have possibly gotten to the window in time was absolute bullshit and assumes that he wouldn't be in a hurry when he was woken up in the middle of the night by something alarming.

Fear is shown to be a very poor deterrent though as serious trials take so long they end up not associating the threat with the crime, but loosing the trail

The old man dragged his foot a little when going to the stand. Does't mean he can't move fast when he needs to to.

This movie probably did more bad than good honestly.
Too many people watched it (or got the gist of it) and think reasonable doubt is any doubt.

>jailing niggers
>bad

>before we judge this young man, we must examine our white privilege
what did Henry Fonda mean by this?

>if the defense attorney didn't bring up the old woman's eyesight & hearing or the old dude's limp, they wouldn't be able to base decisions or conclusions on it.
So if they observe that themselves they're supposed to just ignore it?

>statitics are relevant until they disprove my point, then they are a goverment conspiracy
back to /pol/

Attached: 764567879.jpg (208x326, 10K)

Blow it out you ass.

Let's be fair here, noone deserves to be judged by a mob of average Americans.

How long until robot juries are a thing?

yup, this is why we need to bring back lynchings
receiving instant punishment is a much better deterrent

the kid looked italian/hispanic/some other flavor of nonwhite

Ah. So for you it’s vengeance. People who commit crimes must be killed in turn.

I don't even think deterrence matters, I think killing these people is morally and practically the right thing to do.

>wah wah wah
You disagree, I assume, but you're an idiot.

Unless it's brought up the the defense then yes, they can also officially ask questions. They don't even consider that they are most likely reading glasses and that her long range vision is good, as evidenced by her correct identification of the kid

literally never the "jury of your peers" idea has been a foundation of justice systems for millenia

When robots get good enough at emulating humans that the dumb bleeding hearts decide to give rights to them. So like 50 years, give or take 20 years.

Also what the FUCK is up with the captchas? I must have gone through like 40 of them trying to make this post.

>it goes way beyond reasonable doubt.
No, it goes beyond preponderance of evidence. The film explains extremely clearly why it doesn’t go beyond reasonable doubt.

I wasn't referring to the movie in particular, but in any scenario if the jury observes a witness acting a certain way, or having some sort of disability and the defense/prosection doesn't press them on it or bring it up, is the jury required to pretend like it's not an issue?

ITT: 46 angry men

>. If the defense does not question a witness so their testimony seems unreliable then the testimony should be treated as near truth.
false, during jury selection and briefing you're explained that it's your own responsibility to decide if a juror is reliable or not

Your ignorance is showing. Eye witness testimony is one of the least reliable forms of evidence there is and it's the number 1 cause of wrongful conviction. I wonder how you would feel if a friend or family member was given life or executed based on false eye witness testimony. People have shit memory and easily trick themselves into being "sure" they saw something. We fill in our own blanks.

Better to have 100 guilty men walk free than one innocent man behind bars. Fuck you and people like you who are okay with ruining lives because you have some faggy justice boner. You don't even know what justice is.

>people who don’t want to kill criminals are BABIES
I didn’t say if I agreed or disagreed. You literally assume that in this post. Good for you, I guess.

Yes. They are often ordered to not consider things if they aren't mentioned at the trial

if things were that bad when it was only white men allowed on juries I shudder to think how bad it is today

no, whichever side calls a witness will explain who they are, but it's up to the jury to decide whether they're trustworthy or not
you can accept or not accept anything about any witness

*tips fedora*

I feel like that's an unreasonable thing to ask, as if a witness has some obvious holes in their testimony and jurors can clearly see through it, they're not just going to ignore it.

>You literally assume that in this post.
You got me. What gave it away?

That's cool and all but you are supposed to judge based on what was presented in court.

because it isn't true

Well duh, justice is all about vengeance

>The Death Penalty is proven to not be an effective detterent.
America doesn't have the death penalty though, not really. It takes decades and millions of dollars from jew layers stalling and bankrupting the state to try and execute 1 person. Also it's spelled deterrent, you retard. Hardly anyone ever gets the death penalty in the US, you're completely making shit up.

>if I lie on the internet surely no-one would be able to check...right?
based eurotard
literally none of that is true

>The film explains extremely clearly why it doesn’t go beyond reasonable doubt.
No it doesn't because I don't agree with a lot of Juror 8's arguments.

Texas executes 100 people a month

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_people_executed_in_Texas
>Since 2010: 114 executions
This is out of millions of people. You're a liar and a retard who does it for free.

Those would have been brought up by the lawyers. If it wasn't then they weren't important

>"I can't say this would have any more media coverage had it been 5 white dudes doing it to 2 blacks"

bull fucking shit nigga.

This whole thread is a prime example why we need reasonable doubt and due process. I swear you fags would execute people for stealing a loaf of bread. Thank god for the justice system and juror selection process

t. bread thief

is that why James Fields got life + 400 years for self-defense?

>blatant lie. give a single example faggot
Rotherham.

I'd rather imprison an innocent man than let a guilty one go free.

>Better to have 100 guilty men walk free than one innocent man behind bars. Fuck you and people like you who are okay with ruining lives because you have some faggy justice boner
how many lives are you ruining by letting criminals get away with crimes?

Does anyone have the Japanese one where they all go from innocent to guilty instead?

>brings a knife into the jury room

Attached: 1390815275779.gif (300x300, 927K)

Better imprison every single person on the planet then, just in case.

>coincidentally was seen by two people, coincidentally told his dad he was gonna kill him the day of, coincidentally couldn't remember the movie even though it was very recent, coincidentally used the same knife
>juror introduces speculation, and produces a knife out of thin air
The statistical probability of all of those coincidences coming together is probably about as likely as me being struck by lightning twice in the same place. This would be fine if they let a murderer loose in some random asshole city. Unfortunately, I am cursed to live here in New York. So they let a fictitious killer back onto the streets, enabling him to get away with patricide. Over-litigiousness is NOT a good thing. We should follow laws, but ultimately remember that the point of laws is to make life better, not more tedious.

Furthermore, I'd like to take this moment to point out that our court system isn't actually, "innocent until proven guilty." It's, "not guilty until proven innocent or guilty." They are not one and the same.

the point of the movie is that if the kid was white and from a good family the other jurors would have hesitated to pronounce him guilty based on coincidences

if criminals thought about the consequences of their actions they wouldnt be criminals

its a movie about how sheltered liberals want to undermine the justice system just so they can feel good. its pretty based but most people dont get the deeper message