Asses the fundamental principles of Jurisprudence in Lumets film Essay

Asses the fundamental principles of Jurisprudence in Lumets film Twelve Angry Men - Essay Example That is until one juror votes â€Å"not guilty† on the grounds that â€Å"it’s possible† that the man is innocent. That one phrase is the key to his argument, which enables him to change the opinions of every other juror in the room and turn a near conviction into an acquittal. The juror, Juror #8, argues that it is not certain that the witnesses were correct in their testimonies. When one of the other jurors argues against him and says that what they are doing isn’t an exact science he replies, â€Å"That’s right, it isn’t†. This juror recognizes the fundamental principles of jurisprudence as it applies to juries in a court of law. He knows that jury deliberation should be approached from a careful perspective and should not stray from that perspective. Juror #8 recognizes that there is an ethical ground by which every member of a jury should adhere to. â€Å"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.†- Samuel Chase (fortunecity.com). This means that the jury is granted the right to weigh the facts of the case and come to a conclusion about what illegal activities have occurred based on those facts, but only those facts. They don’t only have the right to determine the facts. They have the obligation to determine the facts. There can be no straying from the facts. Biases or prejudices cannot interfere with a juror’s decision. The jurors also cannot come to a conclusion that is based only on speculation or a â€Å"leap of faith†. â€Å"Most of em, its like they have no feelings! They can do anything! Whats goin on here? Im trying to tell you were makin a big mistake, you people! This kids a liar! I know it. I know all about them! I mean, whats happenin here? Im speaking my piece†¦,† says Juror #10. The last part of that line speaks volumes about why that particular juror thinks that he knows exactly what happened the night of the murder. He has let his opinion

Constitution in 2013 - Changes and Interpretations Term Paper

Constitution in 2013 - Changes and Interpretations - Term Paper Example e idea of arming the citizens dated back to around 700 AD in England when King Alfred required all the citizens to be armed depending on their financial status with the poorest at least owning a spear and a lance. With time, the ownership of weapons was even allowed to the workers of a landowner, which was in preparation for crossing the sea to Gascavy. This paper will explain the history of the right to own weapons in American bill of rights and how the interpretation of the same has changed for the last two centuries including the relevant Supreme Court cases involved. In1785 delegates from two states of Maryland and Virginia met to address the inadequacies that were in the present in the articles of the confederation, and a year later, another meeting was held with delegates from five states that identified the solutions to the problems. These includes setting up of an arbitration process to handle disputes between states, the need for setting up a militia to defend the states against foreign invasions and an interstate force that is trained to suppress insurrections especially by the slaves. Federalists such as James Madison who supported the congress to be given the power over security and forming the army was of the opinion that the federal government would not be able to raise a strong enough army to counter the militias. However anti federalists were not supportive of the constitution that gave such huge powers to the federal government as they thought the federal government would decide to disarm the militias. In order to solve the gridlock and push ahead with the adoption of the constitution, a compromise had to be reached and the anti federalists wanted the powers of the federal government to be decentralized (Geber 48). It was agreed that a bill of rights should be included in the constitutions so the federalists promised to support an amendment of the constitution if it was adopted and this convinced many of the anti federalists to support the