By Karen - 10 August 2021
The first time I watched "Twelve Angry Men", it was very, very shocking. Because although I have heard of the jury system before, most of them have been exposed to the media, which is naturally critical. But after watching this movie at that time, my first feeling was that my previous ideas were wrong. Although this system is not perfect, it is really the "worst-worst" choice.
Most people born in the 1980s should be the first to come into contact with the jury system in the Simpson case that caused a sensation in the world in the 1990s. I remember that the domestic media at the time hyped up the case as a model of the failure and incompetence of the American judicial system. I also deeply believed that at the time, I felt that the American legal system was vulnerable to the money-stacking monster of Xin's "Dream Team" lawyers. I even felt that American justice protects the wealthy. People like Lin who were "heinous" escaped sanctions. I remember that the main criticism at the time was the black-box operation of the jury. The jurors were easy to be emotional, and they were disbanded after the trial without any responsibility and so on. After watching "Twelve Angry Men", I suddenly got up and wanted to learn more about the trial of the Simpson case, especially the composition of the jury, so I started to check relevant materials in the library and the Internet the next day.
After reading a lot of information, I have to lament the power of opaque information, which can turn a normal person into a mentally retarded person. Let's briefly analyze the case and talk about the mistake of thinking at that time.
First of all, it can now be seen that the prosecutors at that time absolutely tried their best to send Simpson to jail. They sent the best unbeaten Western prosecutor in the region and the attorney general of Los Angeles to sit in person. Hundreds of criminal police and criminal investigation experts were mobilized and spent several million dollars. It was a hard work. At that time, the domestic media alluded to the prosecution's attempt to release Simpson and it was untenable.
Secondly, there is no problem with the composition of the jury, which is actually very disadvantageous to Simpson. Although under the pressure of the Dream Lawyers and the so-called "racial issues", the case was put to trial in a district court in Los Angeles with more blacks. Among the 12-person jury selected at random, 9 were black. Intuitively, the jury is easy. Simpson is biased due to skin color issues. But a closer look at the composition of the jury reveals that 8 of the 9 blacks are women, which is actually very detrimental to Simpson. Because there is a survey of what kind of black men black women hate in the United States, and the results show that the two most hate are, one is to marry a beautiful white wife immediately after making money or becoming famous, and the other is that they like domestic violence and often beat and kick their wives. As everyone knows, Simpson has the two things. According to the personality of most women, it is estimated that it is difficult to evoke the "sense of identity" of the same skin color in such a person.
In the end, Simpson was found not guilty. It is not very surprising. The American judicial system has an almost harsh pursuit of procedural justice. There is no direct evidence in this case, and the main indirect evidence has not been adopted due to procedural problems in the collection of evidence. This is all in the United States. In a country that emphasizes evidence, "I would rather let a thousand, not be wronged", the jury can only make a verdict of not guilty in the end. Of course, if Simpson is a pauper and cannot hire such a good and eloquent lawyer, it is estimated that he will go to jail. But this assumption is of little significance, because in a trial, no one can guarantee that everyone's starting point is fair. What can be guaranteed is fairness and procedural justice. This was completely achieved in this case.
The primary goal of American justice is not to bring criminals to justice, or even to pursue the truth, but to protect the legal rights of citizens from being violated by the government. If it is only to find out the truth and fight crimes, then there should be no Miranda warning and no extreme emphasis on procedural justice. Because there is no procedural justice, substantive justice will eventually be damaged. Because individuals are very weak in the face of the state dictatorship, and procedural justice is not emphasized, it may be a good fight against crime in a period of time, but in the long run, it will damage social justice even more.
I watched this movie again last night, without the excitement I had at the beginning, but after watching it, I feel that it is a good movie. Although the vast majority of the plot takes place in a closed, dark room, and can only rely on the character's dialogue to promote the development of the plot, the clever arrangement will not make people feel tired. After watching it carefully, I discovered that the director actually told the main life experiences, life outlook, values, etc. of twelve people in a short movie. There is no waste in the dialogue and actions of the characters! This alone is enough to make this movie a classic.
