Friday, April 27, 2012

12 ANGRY MEN

A selfish attempt to obtain revenge is the role of reason, in considering the Death penalty. I’ve had 4 family members killed, but I know that executing those who killed my loved ones, won’t bring my family back. An eye for an eye is leaving all of us blind. To most of the public, prison represents justice, but I’ve lived next to San Quentin State Prison for over a decade, and know that according to the state prison is an industry, a very lucrative industry. The prison systems represents tax dollars, and once people are incarcerated they become a number (name less) similar to cattle. These nameless numbers work while they are incarcerated in which generates more money for the state and in return the inmates receive .85 cents an hour. So while prison is a false representation (allusion) of Justice, jurors in certain countries decide whether or not a man/woman should live or be put to death and just think how many death sentences were overturned? In the film “12 Angry Men” an obvious guilty verdict is challenged by one juror. That one juror caused a ripple affect, and the other eleven jurors followed suite in which, all their biases and insecurities reveal them selves. So their once guilty verdict is now vulnerable to be challenged. It is extremely difficult to find reason to or not to give a man/woman a death sentence, and the film “12 Angry Men” clearly demonstrates that. I’ve seen my Dad on life support with a gun shot wound to his head, and the people that shot him were 14 and 15 years old. The teenagers will be out of jail in about 10 years and don’t want them to die; because I know them living with a murder on their hands/conscience is like living in hell.

Saturday, February 12, 2011