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.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Monday, December 27, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)