Homework Help

In "Twelve Angry Men", what would have happened to the boy if the Fourteenth Amendment...

user profile pic

pimpxslayer | Student, Grade 9 | (Level 1) eNoter

Posted September 14, 2008 at 1:57 AM via web

dislike 1 like

In "Twelve Angry Men", what would have happened to the boy if the Fourteenth Amendment had not been ratified and the jury didn't apply the "due process of law"?

2 Answers | Add Yours

user profile pic

katemschultz | High School Teacher | (Level 2) Associate Educator

Posted September 14, 2008 at 2:53 AM (Answer #1)

dislike 0 like

Most of the jurors have looked at the evidence and assumed the boy was guilty. However, the prosecutors need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the boy is guilty. Juror number 8 feels there is a reasonable doubt. The boy is also to be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty by the prosecution. It's not the defense attorney's job to prove the boys is innocent. So, if the boy starts out innocent and there is a reasonable doubt, the jury cannot convict him. If Juror 8 hadn't pointed this out, the boy would have been convicted and sentenced to death.

user profile pic

dbello | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Educator

Posted September 14, 2008 at 9:56 AM (Answer #2)

dislike 0 like

The cornerstone of the American Justice System is founded on this premise, "innocent until proven guilty".The "Due Process of Law" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not the role of the jury.The possibility that the boy would have been executed, would be the result of human prejudice. The role of the court is to see that due process and equal protection under the law is established. The court would oversee jury selection and the behavior of the trial. In a free society it is impossible to force people to think one way or another. Prior to the Civil War the Supreme Court ruled that the actions of the federal government had no effect on state governments. As a result, there were states denying civil liberities to certain individuals. The Fourteenth Amendment changes that, "federalizing" The Bill of Rights. The defendant in "Twelve Angry Men" recieved "due process", he had a trial. Was equal protection under the law administered here? The question is not whether the defendant recieved a trial, but rather did he recieve a "fair" trial. Stereotyping is always a dangerous game. "Twelve Angry Men" teaches us just how dangerous and scary ignorance can be, however it also reminds us about leadership and the importance of something greater than ourselves. If we have the capacity to reach beyond our individual bias...we better do it, because that is where our salvation lies.

Join to answer this question

Join a community of thousands of dedicated teachers and students.

Join eNotes