Total Pageviews

Sunday, March 20, 2011

12 Angry Men (1957) by Sidney Lumet

12 Angry Men, to me, is one of the most successful movies in terms of using only a few settings- 97% in one room- to tell a simple yet interesting story. Even though most of the scenes is filmed in the jury room, the plot is so captivating that it does not bore audiences. 12 men who were different in terms of personality are left in one room to decide whether a boy is guilty for murdering his father. If found convicted, the boy would be sentenced to a mandatory death penalty. At first, when a vote is carried out, 11 men voted that the boy is guilty, without much reasoning and debate. Only one, which is Juror 8, suggested that although the evidence points indirectly at the boy, they should not make swift judgments but instead should question the reliability and accuracy of witness' testimonies. Unlike other jurors, Juror 8 is determined to prove the boy's innocence and at the same time convince other jurors to stand on his side. In the end, after much reasoning and heated debate, all 12 men agreed that the boy is not guilty, including Juror 3, who insisted that the boy is guilty since the very beginning.

Rating: 5 stars. Although the movie has a dull start (partly because it's black and white, but nobody is to blame since it was the only available technology at that time), as it develops, it becomes more intriguing and audiences anticipate how the only dissenter (Juror 8) is able to persuade 11 other men with fair reasoning. The fact that most of it is filmed in one room might bore some people, but I feel that it adds more interest to it as it is as if we are literally sitting in a jury room and experiencing how juries would make decisions in real life.

Juror 3
 Best bits: I would definitely say the part where the stubborn Juror 3 changes his vote to 'not guilty'. Since the start of the session, Juror 3 sort of predetermined that the boy is guilty for murdering the latter's father. With just a few doubtful evidences, he made conclusions that the boy should be punished. He did not take into account that the testimonies might have flaws in them but chose to believe it just like that. The truth is that Juror 3 was being prejudicial to the boy. It is revealed that Juror 3 had a bad rapport with his son- he tore a photograph of him and his son. That's why he wanted so badly the accused boy to be pronounced guilty. But in the end, Juror 8 managed to prove him wrong and they unanimously voted the boy 'not guilty'.

Juror 8
Favourite juror: Juror 8. I admire the way Juror 8 is able to give reasons to his argument. Unlike some jurors, he does not yell when he presents his points but does it in a rather calm way. He comes up with brilliant ideas to prove the boy's innocence. He pays attention to details and how they can affect the testimonies. He knows that the testimonies are doubtful and explains in detail as to how the testimonies could be distorted from the truth. He proves that the knife used in the murder is not as unusual as the testimonies suggest- he is able to produce an identical one from his pocket. He is determined till the very end in proving the boy's innocence. He does not let others influence him easily but judges the case solely on evidence and common sense. From being the only dissenter, he is able to persuade everyone to vote 'not guilty', making the vote 12-0 in favour of the boy.

Juror 7
 Comparison of jurors: Juror 9 and Juror 7. Juror 9 changes his vote to 'not guilty', not necessarily believing the accused is not guilty, but feeling that Juror 8's points deserve further discussion. He is trying not to make snap judgments but chooses to pursue the case further. On the other hand, Juror 7 follows the crowd and changes his vote to 'not guilty' not because he supports Juror 8's points, but because he has to attend some baseball game. This is an act of irresponsibility because he simply agrees just for the sake of ending the discussion. He is willing to compromise the boy's life for his own personal reasons, which is a shameful act.

Juror 9

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

What If??


* Defamation – harm done to a person’s reputation, and slander (spoken) versus libel (written)
   Defamation is a serious offense because it undermines someone's reputation so I think the offender should be punished. 
* Whether a statement is seen or heard by a third party or parties
   If a complaint is sent in a private letter to someone, then it's perfectly alright because it is private which means no one can gain access to it except the recipient. But if it's posted in the Internet, then it's wrong because literally everyone can get access to it and therefore, the person's reputation will be  affected.
* Whether the identity of the target is clear
    If the identity of the target is not stated clearly, then no punishment should be carried out.
* Anonymity – does it make the perpetrator more or less responsible?
   An anonymous person is definitely irresponsible because he/she is afraid to admit what he/she have done. This makes his/her information less reliable.
* Harassment – what does it involve?
   Harassment means any offensive behaviour that affects others. It can range from bullying, sexual harassment, racial harassment, religion harassment, stalking to cyberstalking, etc.
* Duty to provide a safe work or study environment – what roles do schools and teachers play?
   Schools should regulate school rules to ensure students and staffs can work in a safe environment. Everyone has the right to work and learn in a safe environment. Whoever breaks the rules must be subjected to suitable punishments in order to prevent them from re-offending.
* Right to freedom of expression – what limits should be placed on it?
   Everyone has the right to express themselves. They can choose to say or where whatever they want as a form of expression. But, of course, everything has its limits. Everyone is free to express their feelings as long as they don't jeopardize other people and bring up sensitive issues e.g. race and religion.
* Right to security of person – should people be protected from written or verbal attacks?
   Any form of defamation which is deemed offensive, whether written or verbal, should be subjected to punishment in order to protect one's reputation.
* Defences and confounding factors – what makes a possibly libellous statement okay?
   A libellous statement that does not contain name or personal details can't be charged because the perpetrator might be writing about things in general and so there's no sufficient evidence to carry out punishment.
* Truth – when the statement is accurate
   Law enforcers seek this from witnesses when they interrogate but sometimes this may be hard to achieve because usually witnesses are biased in their views.
* Fair comment - a legitimate journalistic intent
   This should not be subjected to the law because it is solely feedback on one's work and as long as it's not too offensive it's perfectly alright.
* “The reasonable person” - how offensive does something have to be before it becomes libellous?
   No law states how offensive something has to be before it can be classified as libellous. It is often subjected to the views of law enforcers and the society. 

Perceptions

Senses play an important role in identifying criminals. Witnesses need to use all their five senses for criminal recognition. Humans have five key senses- sight, smell, taste, hearing and touch. Sensory perception is what witnesses use to explain what had happened, but that might not necessarily be accurate because the way our brains interpret something is influenced by various factors- culture, religion, age, gender, background, etc. So we might predetermine things, which sometimes makes witnesses unreliable.


Interpretation is the act of explaining the meaning of something. When our senses transfer information through our nerves to our brains, our brains interpret the message and therefore, decides what to do.




Here is something we can consider from different perceptions:

'A tree as seen by a biologist, a logger, an environmentalist, a native from Sarawak'

A biologist would think of trees as a source of oxygen and something to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the air.

A logger would perceive trees as a source of income.

An environmentalist would be promoting to the public about the importance of trees in our environment.

A native from Sarawak would see trees as a sacred object because their ancestors minght have depended on trees for a living.

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Amnesty International Death Penalty Debate




Death penalty......a very slippery topic. During the GP lesson in school today, Ms Nora and Ms Davina, representatives of Amnesty International, an organization that protects human rights came by to give a presentation on why death penalty should be abolished. Obviously, since they're from Amnesty International, they strongly disagree with the idea of death penalty. At the beginning of class, when asked whether death penalty should be abolished, I unequivocally answered 'no' and that they should remain in the legal system. I was very sure that we must have this sentence in our system. But. During their presentation, I started to doubt my decision.

They, especially Ms Nora was very convincing in her points. Here are a few points that she mentioned:

-Death sentence is very cruel. Death penalties such as hanging, electrocution, stoning, firing squad and injections are indeed very inhumane.

-It violates our rights as humans. According to Article 3 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every humans have rights to live, so death penalty is actually violating this human right.

-There is also a chance that the person is innocent and is wrongly charged for a
crime that they did not commit. There have been cases where individuals were released after being given death sentence, because they were proved innocent.

-Death penalty is discriminatory. Poor people are more likely to be executed than rich people as they can't afford lawyers to defend themselves.

-Death penalty has no deterrent on the crime rate.


Ms Nora suggested that instead of the death penalty, the police department must be much more efficient in curbing crimes so that it will act as a deterrent. She is of the opinion that if potential criminals know that they'll be arrested, they would not commit it. Then, there will be no need to carry out death penalties.


Her points are true to an extent. At the end of her presentation, I still stick to my answer- there is a need of death penalty. I know it's cruel, that's why it's carried out on criminals who have committed the same act of cruelty in their crimes and NOT on petty crimes. People who have committed a serious offense should have an idea of what they are getting themselves into and if they knew then they shouldn't do it in first place. If people know they will only face life-imprisonment, they will take the legal system casually and commit all the crimes they want.

Life is a precious thing, so the punishment for taking somebody's life is paying the price with your own life. Thus, death penalty is nothing but just punishment for those who have taken another individual or individuals lives, just like the saying 'an eye for an eye'.



A murderer, for example Saddam Hussein, who has mercilessly killed lots of people once, may escape from prison and end up killing others. Life imprisonment means chances of parole, which gives the criminal a chance to get back at those who testified against him. He can also take revenge from the victim's family. This leaves the victim's family living a life of fear all the time. Death penalty ensures the murderer can commit no more crimes in the future.

Ask yourself this question- 'Why are we so concerned about the murderer, when we should pay more attention to the victim?'.The law seems too sympathetic towards the criminal than towards the victim and his or her family. This gives a chance for criminals to play on people's moral conscience and thus, escape their death sentence. The reason the convicted is charged for death penalty is because he or she has murdered somebody. Thus, there is no room for sympathy. The criminal is only facing the consequences of his or her actions. Everybody is responsible for their actions.


Of course, the death penalty law should not be too rigid. It depends on the type of case and should be allowed to be amended if needed. Not all cases are the same so law enforcers are responsible for investigating so that they will be no error of executing innocent people. I do agree with Ms Nora that the law enforcers should increase their efforts in arresting criminals as it can act as a good deterrent. But sometimes this is hard to achieve.

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Palace of Justice Visit 24.2.2011

After the visit to the Palace of Justice, I have learned about the structure of the Malaysian judicial system.


One of the most shocking thing that I discovered regarding the law is about the diplomatic immunity. It means that if you are a family member of a diplomat, whenever you commit a crime, you would not be punished in the host country, instead you would be sent back to your own country so your government would decide what your sentence would be. This means that they can't escape scot-free, but there are cases where countries do not take actions on law offenders from their country in order to protect the reputation of the country. Sometimes, they would just be released, which is an example of injustice. Below is an article I found about diplomatic immunity.




'Drunk diplomat's wife' kills man

Tuesday, 24 February 2009 13:26

Amanda Roestoff, Beeld

(www.news24.com) Johannesburg - The wife of a Malaysian diplomat allegedly killed a man when she collided with him as he was checking the faulty engine of his stationary vehicle on the N1 in Roodepoort early on Saturday morning.

Bystanders say the 37-year-old woman was drunk, but she cannot be prosecuted because she has diplomatic immunity.

A source at the scene of the accident said a man arrived in a vehicle with diplomatic number plates shortly after the woman had called him on the phone.

Another source saw the man removing empty liquor bottles from the boot of the woman's white Renault Clio and hiding them under his jacket.

Beeld was told by a reliable source that the woman from Florida North on the West Rand was travelling on the N1 South in the direction of 14th Avenue when the accident happened at about 01:00 on Saturday.

Hit from behind

Adonis Ndudule, 24, from Ormonde View in the south of Johannesburg, stopped a few hundred metres before the 14th Avenue offramp when the engine of his Volkswagen Beetle started giving trouble.

His neighbour's daughter, Sharon Mphofu, 22, was with him in the car.

A member of ER24's emergency services apparently passed the Beetle just before the accident and had seen the car with its flashing hazards parked in the emergency lane.

Ndudule was inspecting the engine, which is mounted in the rear of the Volkswagen Beetle, when he was hit from behind by the Clio. He died on impact.

An employee of a towing service said the driver of the Clio was so wobbly she couldn't stand on her feet and sat down on the railing next to the road.

Then she gave her cellphone to someone else and said in English: "Here! Talk to him!"

The man identified himself as her husband and ordered bystanders to immediately bring his wife home. When his request was not heeded, he arrived shortly afterwards and removed the bottles from the Clio.

A search on the eNaTIS vehicle system revealed that the Clio was registered to the Malaysian embassy.

Case of manslaughter

A member of the metro police on the scene said the woman told them she had done everything possible to avoid the collision.

"We were not allowed to arrest her at the scene - even though she may have been reckless - because she has diplomatic immunity," said Inspector Edna Mamonyane, Johannesburg' s metro police spokesperson.

A case of manslaughter was opened at the Honeydew police station on the West Rand on Sunday afternoon.

Once the investigation is complete, it will be referred to the Malaysian High Commission who will then decide what steps to take.

- Beeld