The US Presidential Election

The Presidential Election

The President is elected after a long procedure and a long electoral campaign. To be candidate he has to be over 35, American-born and live on the US soil at least 14 years. The elections take place on first Tuesday of November (after the first Monday) and the President’s term starts in January. He is elected by a electoral college but before that, the candidate go through a long process.

Pre-campaign
Several months before the very election of the President the candidates announce they’re running for the Presidency for their party. The candidates need time to go all over the country and to make himself known by the population. If he’s not well-known he’s got little chance to be chosen to represent the party at the Presidential election.



Primaries and caucuses
A primary election is a means to select a candidate inside a party. Two-thirds of the States use that system to select the candidate of the two main political parties: the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Voters chose their favourite candidate. There are two types of primaries: the closed and open ones.
- Closed primaries: only voter who are member of the party can take part in the primary election. Only democrats vote in democratic primaries for instance. But the concept of being member of a party is not really clear since Americans are not organized into parties like Europeans. To be member of a party a voter only has to declare what is his favourite party when he subscribes on electoral lists. Thirty states adopted this primary.
- Open primaries: all the voters can take part in the election.
Another method to select candidates is the caucus. This is a kind of meeting during which the top representative of the party chooses the candidate. This method was long very popular in the US but its was accused as non democratic. For national elections caucuses tend to be replaced but they are still used for local elections.

National Conventions
The next step leads all the candidates of the party to a national convention. Each party has its own convention. Usually the Republicans hold it in July and the Democrats in August. It takes place in a big US city and are a huge party/feast showing the strength and the high spirit of the party. But they remain an important political event.
The candidate for the Presidency will be elected by the delegates together with the vice-president (ticket). Then the candidate will deliver the investiture speech announcing the agenda of the candidate if elected in November.
Traditionally the candidate chooses his vice-president candidate. Traditionally the latter’s role is to counterbalance the candidate’s personality or background and do he may come from a different region or represent other tendencies or people.
The National Convention is generally organized only by big parties. The smaller ones usually use other methods like petition. To have the right to take part in a presidential election, a candidate has to gather support (the number depends on the states). Once the candidate has filled all the conditions in every state, he can run for presidency.

Election and Electoral College

Click on the link below to watch the "Splainer" already watched in class:

Electing a US President in Plain English

The US citizens vote for delegates who will then compose the Electoral College. Each State has a specific number of delegates. It equals the number of senators (two per State) and the number of Representatives. The political parties or the independent candidates hand out a list of people to be elected in the College. Usually the big parties choose their delegates during the National Convention. Members of Congress and their staff can’t be part of the College to respect the Separation of Powers.
On first Tuesday after the first Monday of November every four years, the US citizens vote for the election of the President and the Vice-President. First the election is made on State level then at the Federal level. The party which gathers the majority of votes in one State, wins all the electoral college delegates of the State. This is called the winner-take-all-system. Only Nebraska and Maine have different rules.
On first Monday after second Wednesday of December the Electoral College meet in Washington and elect the President and Vice-President.
On January 6th of the following year the votes are scrutinized and the results are officially announced in both chambers of the Congress. Of course, we know the winner on the night of the popular vote but if the College can’t determine a winner, the House of Representatives would have to decide over a winner among the three first candidates. And the Senate would have to decide over the Vice-President.
On January 20th at noon the President and Vice-President take oath on the Bible and enter office. This ceremony is presided by the president of the Supreme Court.

A few arguments in favour and against the Electoral College:




VOCABULARY on the US Presidential Election:

Pork-barrel: (US): the use of government funds for projects designed to win votes
(Pork barrel politics)
Gerrymandering: manipulate the boundaries of an electoral constituency so as to favour one party or class

The Parties:
The Democrats
The Democratic Party
Democratic (Adj.) The Democratic Party (The democratic convention in Denver, Colorado.)
To be left wing
Leftist: gauchiste (fr.)
Labor (USA): the trade unions.

The Republicans
The Republican Party= the GOP, Grand Old Party.
Republican (Adj.) ( The Republican convention in Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota.
Diehard republicans)


The campaign:
A grassroot campaign
To canvas
To raise money/ to fund raise
Electioneering: la campagne, la propagande électorale (fr.)
To take the stump / to go to the country / to hit the campaign trail: partir en campagne (fr.)
to fight a campaign
to hit the hustings (Br.)
Hustings: 1. Campaign: campagne électorale  to go / to be out on the hustings: partir en campagne électorale
2. Occasion for speeches: Débat public pendant la campagne électorale (fr.)
At the hustings: Au cours du débat public (fr.)
To address public meetings
A Stump speech (US): Am: Stump: estrade
To be / to go on the stump: faire une tournée électorale.

To pull in votes: engranger des votes (fr.)
To woo / court voters
To press the flesh: prendre un bain de foule (fr.)

The election

A congressional election (/ Congressmen)
A gubernatorial election (/ governors)
The presidential race
An incumbent president
To run for president
The ticket
The running-mate
To endorse a candidate: soutenir un candidat (fr.)
The front-runner
The runner-up
A candidate
A contender: un adversaire (fr.)
The primaries (open primaries / closed primaries)
The delegates
Pledged delegates / unpledged delegates
Superdelegates

A caucus
The Members of the electoral college
The winner-take-all system

A voting system
A direct election
A two stage election= a two tier election= a two round system
A first round / A first ballot
A second ballot / A run-off: un second tour
To hold a run-off: organizer un second tour
Proportional representation
Polling day= election day
To go to the polls
A polling booth
A ballot slip
A ballot box
An unmarked ballot / a blank vote
The turnout

A slush fund: une caisse noire (fr.)

To muster 5% of the votes / to collect 5% of the votes
To go beyond 10% of the votes

To win an election = to pull off a victory/ to carry the day
To carry a state ≠ to lose an election

To win by landslide
A landslide victory
An upset: une victoire surprise (fr.)
Scanty (Adj.): étriqué
To tally the votes: compter les voix (fr.)
To hand over power to someone.

To be sidelined
To retire from politics
To stage a political comeback: effectuer un retour en politique (fr.)

The UK Parliament: The House of Lords

Chapter II

The House of Lords

The Upper House

1. Composition of the House of Lords

1. The former composition of the House of Lords (until 1999):

- Approximately 1000 people sitting in the House of Lords.

- It was characterised by a great conservatism and absenteeism.

- We distinguished between:

Lords Temporal (Between 1200 and 1300)

Lords Spiritual: 26

a.     The Lords Temporal:

-       788 Hereditary Peers and Peeresses representing two thirds of the House.

-       360 Life Peers (created in 1958 by the Life Peerages Act). Often appointed Peers for service to the nation (ex: all the former prime ministers)

-       12 The Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (= Law Lords): appointed for life by the sovereign on the advice of the Lord Chancellor. (+ 12 former Law Lords can also sit at their side).

b.     The Lords Spiritual:

-       Archbishop of Canterbury and Archbishop of York

-       The 24 oldest bishops of the Church of England (whose head is the Sovereign).

-       Their presence in the Upper House is criticised as it gives political clout to the Church of England which is unrepresentative of the cultural and religious diversity of the UK.

Since the Peerage Act (1963), a Hereditary Lord willing to be more involved in the political life of his country may disclaim his title.

2. The House of Lords since the House of Lords Act (1999)

This act (which came into force in January 2000) was a remedy to:

-       the poor level of attendance in the House of Lords

-       the overwhelming conservatism of the House

Further to the Act:

-       Hereditary Peers lost the privilege/ right to sit automatically in the House. (Article 1 of the law reads “No one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage”). Only 92 hereditary peers have the right to sit in the House

3. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005

-       The act suppressed the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.

-       The House of Lords is not the highest court of Appeal of the British Judicial System.

-       Members of the Supreme Court are first former Law Lords. They have the title of “Justices of the Supreme Court” and are judges only. They can’t be members of the Upper House. The Supreme Court, (located in a separate building: in Middlesex Guildhall) started operating in October 2009.

2. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005

The House of Lords used to be the Highest Court of the Land. But the fact that the House of Lords combined Legislative and Judicial functions, and that the Lord Chancellor used to be a member of the Cabinet, Speaker of the House of Lords, as well as the Head of the Judicial Branch, contravened the principle of separation of powers. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005, brought a remedy to (put an end to) this confusion of powers.

1.     The Lord Chancellor

Before the Constitutional Reform Act:

-       The Lord Chancellor was the Speaker of the House of Lords.

-       He was at the head of the Upper House.

-       Contrary to the Speaker in the House of Commons, he could take part in debates, and he could vote.

-       He was a member of the Cabinet, as Secretary of Justice.

-       He was appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Pursuant to the Constitutional Reform:

-       The Lord Chancellor does not have a judicial role anymore. He is not president of the Chancery division of the High Court as he used to be. He does not preside the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords (“Chambre des Lords en formation judiciaire”), which has been replaced by the Supreme Court of Justice of the U.K.

-       The Lord Chancellor is a member of the cabinet at the head of the Department of Justice. He is chosen among people having either, a certain experience as a secretary of state, or as an MP or as top-rank lawyer.

-       The Lord Speaker of the House of Lords is a distinct position from the Lord Chancellor.

2.     The Lord Speaker

-       He is elected internally by Members of the House of Lords.

-       He is politically impartial.

-       The Lord Speaker assumed some of the responsibilities previously held by the Lord Chancellor, but, unlike the Lord Chancellor, is independent of government. He chairs the Lords debating chamber, offers advice on procedure, and acts as an ambassador for the work of the Lords both at home and abroad.

-       Lord Speakers can sit for two terms only, which last a maximum of five years each.

-       Although the Lord Speaker chairs the Lords debating chamber, they have less authority than their counterpart Speaker in the Commons. This is because the Lords regulate themselves and the order of business in the House. Therefore, unlike the Speaker in the House of Commons, the Lord Speaker does not call the House to order or rule on points of order call Members to speak or select amendments.

3.     The Leader of the House of Lords

-       The Leader of the House of Lords is a government minister and member of the Cabinet. The office is responsible for the organisation of government business in the House of Lords, and offering advice on matters of House procedure (the formal and informal rules of its everyday activities). He is appointed by the Prime Minister.

-       (The Leader expresses the collective feelings of the House on formal occasions, such as motions of thanks or congratulations. The Leader is also available to assist and advise all Lords.)

4.     A word about ‘Black Rod’

-       Black Rod is a senior officer in the House of Lords. 

-       He is responsible for security, controlling access to and maintaining order within the House (police services and fire safety).

-       He also has ceremonial duties. Appointed by the Lord Great Chamberlain and secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain, Black Rod is responsible for and participates in the major ceremonial events in the Palace of Westminster.

-       Black Rod's role at the State Opening of Parliament: He is sent from the Lords Chamber to House of Commons to summon MPs to hear the Queen's Speech. Traditionally the door of the Commons is slammed in Black Rod's face to symbolise the Commons independence. Black Rod then bangs three times on the door with the rod. The door of the House of Commons is then opened and all MPs follow Black Rod back to the Lords to hear the Queen's Speech.

3. Functions of the House of Lords

1. Judicial Functions

-       The House of Lords Used to be the final appellate court of the UK.

-       In 2005, the Constitutional Reform Act transferred the House of Lords’ judicial function to a Supreme Court of the UK.

-       The Law Lords (Lords of Appeal in Ordinary), became Justices of the Supreme Court.

2. Legislative Functions

-       The role of the House of Lords in the law-making process was rather limited.

-       In theory, an of the two chambers of Parliament could initiate a bill, except in the case of financial bills, which first have to be studies in the House of Commons.

-       Bills may be initiated in the House of Lords but this procedure is rather rare, as most bills are proposed by the government. Most of the time, the legislative role of the House of Lords consists in studying bills which have been voted by the House of Commons (following a procedure similar to that of the House of Commons but quicker).

-       The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 greatly reduced the powers of the House of Lords. Since then the House of Lords merely had the power to delay the enactment of a bill.

-       1911: May delay a bill for 2 years (only 1 month for financial bills). The Act reduced the Life of the parliament from 7 to 5 years.

-       1949: May delay a bill for 1 year only, (only 1 month for financial bills). If the bill is rejected by the Lords and reintroduced y the commons at the next session, the Lord can’t veto the bill.

Justices, Ruling 5-4, Endorse Personal Right to Own Gun

Justices, Ruling 5-4, Endorse Personal Right to Own Gun

Summary

Overturning the District of Columbia ban on handguns, the Supreme Court, ruled that keeping and bearing a loaded gun at home for self-defense was a constitutional right.

The text then presents the conflicting views of Justice Scalia (representing the majority opinion) and of Justice Stevens (representing the dissenting opinion).

While Scalia acknowledges the problems caused by gun violence, he contends that the role of the Supreme Court is neither to rewrite the Constitution, nor to pronounce the second amendment extinct.

According to him (/ in his view), the militia reference in the prefatory section of the amendment does not intend to limit the scope of the amendment, but only reflect the Constitution’s Framers’ concern that the new Federal government should not try to disarm the people as the British government had tried to do previously.

As for Justice Stevens (/ Justice Stevens on the other hand), claims that Justice Scalia’s reading is a “strained” and unconvincing interpretation of the amendment.

If Stevens is to be believed, his own interpretation is the one that is fully respectful of the Constitution and of the original intention of the Founding Fathers, who had provided for the right to bear guns, but only when it was necessary to set up militias. 

The Judicial Branch

The Judicial Branch

II. The US Supreme Court

1.     Powers and Role: Judicial Review

2.     The Structure of the US Supreme Court

3.     How cases reach the Supreme Court

a.     Rules of access

b.     Writs

            The Supreme Court is the only Appellate court that has original jurisdiction over cases between states and cases involving foreign ambassadors or countries. Most other cases begin in lower courts and reach the Supreme Court in three ways: (A writ is a court document conveying some kind of order).

- Writ of appeal: a right available to all litigants but at the discretion of the Supreme Court (if they consider the case important), concerns the cases in which state law is in direct conflict with the constitution or in which the US is party to a civil suit. These situations seldom occur.

- Writ of certiorari: it is not considered a right to everybody. The cases heard deal with state court decision conflicts with Supreme Court decisions or when a new federal question has been raised or else if there has been inconsistent rulings between two or more states or courts of appeal. There is no discretion: four out of the nine justices must agree to examine the case for the Supreme Court to start working on it.

- Writ of habeas corpus: this is a fundamental safeguard of individual rights designed to enable an accused person to challenge arbitrary detention and to force an open trial before a judge. These cases are left to justices’ discretion. Most cases on that writ are about convicted on the death row.

           

            c- The role of the Solicitor General

The Solicitor General is the third most important person in the Justice Department (after the Attorney General and the Vice Attorney General). But he is the top government defence lawyer in almost all cases involving the government as a party.

            The role of the Solicitor General is to regulate the flow of cases. Other attorneys can do it but he has greatest control with no review of his or her actions by any authority.

            B- The Supreme Court’s procedures

a-    The preparation

When a case is accepted, both sides must prepare briefs – written documents in which attorneys explain why the court should rule in favour of their client. Briefs are filled with references to precedents to show that other courts have often ruled the same way as the Supreme Court should do.

At the same time, there are often sympathetic interest groups coming to support one side. They write amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs to claim support.

b-    Oral Argument

The next stage consists in both attorneys (both sides) to appear before the Court to present their position and answer questions. Each attorney has only half an hour, including interruptions and questions.

c-     The Conference

The Court discusses the case in its Wednesday or Friday conference presided by the Chief Justice who speaks first. It’s a secret conference. They reach a decision on the basis of a majority vote.

d-    Opinion Writing

Then one of the members of the majority who voted for the decision writes an opinion. The Chief Justice decides who will write. This decision is important because it can change the signification of the decision. Every opinion of the Supreme Court is considered as a precedent for future cases. Differences in wording or emphasis can have important implications. But the Supreme Court always expresses its decisions in terms of law and precedent.

e-     Dissent

Justices who disagree with the decision of the majority may choose to express their disagreement in the form of a dissenting opinion. Dissent can also be used to signal that people defeated are still supported by some Justices. Dissent plays an important role because it gives lawyers a reason to bring such cases to appeal. And it shows that even if the Court speaks with a single opinion, it’s still the opinion of a majority.

III. Judicial Restraint and Judicial Activism

-       Judicial Restraint (discussed in class)


Some justices think that courts should interpret the constitution according to the strict intention of its framers and defer to the views of congress when interpreting federal statutes. These advocates of judicial restraint are called “strict constructionists”, because they look strictly to the words of the constitution in interpreting its meaning.

-       Judicial Activism (discussed in class)

This trend is opposed to judicial activism (cf. Earl Warren, J. Hugo Black, William D. Douglas.). Proponents of judicial activism argue that the court should sometimes go beyond the words of the constitution or a statute to consider the broader societal implications of its decisions. This enables the court to strike out new directions, promulgating new interpretations or inventing new legal and constitutional concepts when they believe these to be socially desirable.

Example: Harry Blackmun’s decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) was based on the constitutional right to privacy that is not found in the words of the constitution.

Since World War II the role of the federal judiciary has been strengthened and expanded. The most important revolution was in judicial policy. 

In the 1950s and 1960s, the Supreme Court took an activist role concerning the Civil Rights. In areas including school desegregation, legislative apportionment, criminal procedure, abortion and voting rights, the Supreme Court was at the forefront of a series of changes in the role of the US government and ultimately in the character of American society.

Indeed, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, is a supreme Court decision handed down by Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1954. (Earl Warren had been appointed Chief Justice by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1953, and remained at the head of the Supreme Court until 1969). Speaking for a unanimous Court Chief Justice Warren reversed the decision reached in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) which stipulated that segregation did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment as long as equal facilities were provided for each race. This ‘separate but equal doctrine’ had provided a legal sanction for segregation, although in practice, facilities for black people were clearly inferior.

This marked a victory for the National Advancement  Association for Colored People (NAACP) and  paved the way for integration and the civil rights movement.

However until 1965, the situation changed slowly. In 1957, President Eisenhower sent federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, so that black pupils could enter a “white” school.

J. F. Kennedy, like Eisenhower before him, had to make sure that a black student could be admitted in a school, and Lyndon B. Johnson secured the passage of the Voting Rights Act (1965) to checkmate Southern efforts to keep black voters from the polls.

On the other hand: R. Reagan and G. W. Bush appointed conservative judges which led the Supreme Court to take a more conservative turn.

A Fuss over Filibuster

A Fuss over Filibuster

The document dates back to 2003.

The issue at stake is the controversial procedure of filibuster which enables a minority of Senators to frustrate the will of the majority.

Bill Frist, the Republican majority leader at the time intended to limit the right of senators to filibuster.

Indeed, he wished to reduce the number of Senators needed to vote a motion of cloture from 60 to 51 senators.

Frist’s major argument is that filibuster is unconstitutional because it is anti-majoritarian.

However, one may challenge Frist’s arguments.

Firstly, one may argue that contrary to what Frist’s comments may suggest, the Senate confirmed the vast majority (an overwhelming majority) of Bush’s nominees to the bench.

The figure, which speaks for itself, shows that Frist’s argument is groundless.

Secondly, the Democrats claim that Frist’s reform would make it too easy for the majority in the Senate to ignore the views of the minority and so would reduce the chamber to a mere “rubber stamp”.

Finally, one may also question Frist’s constitutional argument as according to the journalist, the constitution itself contains several blocking devices which frustrate the will of the majority.

For example, each state is represented by two senators, regardless of its size or population. (However, this argument is quite arguable.)

The Electoral College does not necessarily reflect the will of the popular vote either. Once a party has won the popular vote in a given state all the Electors for that state will vote for their candidate. Therefore the vote of the 45% (for example) who did not vote for this party are totally unrepresented by the Electors.

Bill Frist’s argument is all the more surprising that two of these features (the Electoral College and the Supreme Court) have played a part in having G. W. Bush elected in 2000 despite the fact that the latter had lost the popular vote. 

"Essay Correction" on Twelve Angry Men

Twelve Angry Men

1957

(Story and screenplay by Reginald Rose. Film directed by Sydney Lumet)

From the reference to the Woolworth building that the jurors may see from the window, we may infer that the action is set in New York.

This building, which is located in lower Manhattan not far from the N.Y. Supreme Court, was built for M. Woolworth who ran a firm of department stores selling cheap items in 1913. The president at the time was Woodrow Wilson (Democratic president 1912-1920). He inaugurated the building from Washington D. C., by pressing a button that lit up the 80.000 bulbs of the building.

Vocabulary:

To be at somebody’s beck and call

To give $5 to the cause (aux bonnes oeuvres)

I. The tension

At first, the tone of the conversations is congenial. But the situation deteriorates (goes downhill) fairly rapidly. To convey a sense of tension, Lumet draws a parallel between the storm which is brewing outside and the stifling atmosphere in the room.

When the jurors enter the jury room, they observe that it is the hottest day of the year. It is sizzling hot / baking hot / stifling hot/ roasting. On top of this, the windows open with difficulty and the fan is on the blink (it has broken down). Finally, they are locked into the room.

Driving rain / to be raining cats and dogs / a downpour

A lightning bolt / A flash of lightning / A roll of thunder

(/ The weather is muggy, and makes the jurors feel hot and clammy)

The bigot (the man who suffers from hay fever which makes him impatient and irritable) cracks a joke. He makes fun of / makes sport of the foreman’s suggestion that the jurors should take a preliminary vote by ballot.

He is eager to leave the room quickly / to get it over with as soon as possible. (He wishes he could go home. He would like to go home.)

Wish + Present Conditional: Wish on present or future

Wish + Preterit: Wish on present or future but impossible to fulfil.

Wish + Past Perfect: Regret

The juror with the hat is of the same opinion, as he is attending a baseball game that evening.

The tension cranks up a notch:

-       When Fonda refuses to raise his hand and suggests spending an hour to discuss the case before “sending the kid to the chair”. The bigot who is a great element of tension chuckles and mutters under his breath: “boy oh boy there’s always one”.

-       When Fonda suggests they should sit for an hour, the bigot pretends to tell a funny joke totally unrelated to the case, thereby implying Fonda’s suggestion is preposterous and a waste of time.

-       When the bigot, (who constantly upsets the rules of the discussion), launches into a racist diatribe it irritates the old man causing him to stand up and protest.

-       When Fonda asks “the bigot” why he believes the woman’s testimony whereas he doesn’t believe the kid as “she is one of them too”.

-       When the Bigot calls the Foreman a “kid” whereas the latter is only trying to keep things organised, causing the Foreman to grow weary and lose his temper.

The tension reaches its climax when H. Fonda pulls out the very same switchblade knife / flick-knife (…)

(The “gentleman is entitled to see exhibits in evidence”)

II. The case

The defendant is a young offender who has just turned 18 years old and who allegedly stabbed his father to death.

He is said to have stabbed his father. He is accused of having killed his father.

He grew up in a slum. He comes from an under-privileged background (/ neighbourhood).

His mother is not mentioned and he was raised by his father who is a drunkard (an alcoholic), who was convicted for forgery and who used to beat him up. He is a repeat offender (/a “jailbird”). He is a petty criminal. We can infer from the context that the building where the killing took place is probably a “tenement”.

To mug someone: to assault for money.

Two eyewitnesses claim they saw the kid stab his father and runaway from the apartment.

One is a woman who lives in a building opposite the building where the killing took place, across the elevated train.

The other witness is an old man who lives in the same building, in an apartment just one storey below.

These two people bore witness / gave evidence / gave testimony / testified in court.

(To bear witness)

The accused however claims he was at the cinema at the time of the killing.

(To claim ≠ to pretend)

It appears that during the trial, the prosecution relied heavily on these 2 witnesses.

The accused was defended by a public defender. Henry Fonda questions the competence of this attorney. Maybe the public defender believed the kid didn’t stand a chance. Fonda blames him for not having cross-examined the witnesses. Had he been in the place of the accused / If he had been in the place of the accused, he would have asked for another lawyer.

(To blame someone for doing something / for not doing something).

III. Arguments of the Jurors (Never in the movie are the names of the jurors mentioned.

(We’ll only know the names of the old man and of Henry Fonda’s character at the very end of the film. Naturally, this intends to throw light on the fact that jurors are anonymous.)

Juror n°1: “The little man with the glasses sitting on the left of the Foreman”

His argument is that the defence did not prove that the boy was innocent. However, as Henry Fonda’s character points out, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. It is up to the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty.

Juror n°2: “The loud man at the head of the “beck and call” company who tells the story of his son.

When this juror presents his argument, he asserts that he is only concerned with facts. However as he digresses to tell the story of his own personal fight with his son, one can’t help but feel that somehow the man identifies himself with the victim. He sympathises with the victim (/ he feels sympathetic to the victim).

In reality, he has a personal issue which prevents him from being objective.

Juror n°3: “The Broker”

This juror appears as extremely rational and tempered. His is a very analytical mind. For him the boy his guilty and he explains the guilt of the accused by the environment in which the boy grew up (“slums are breeding grounds for criminals”).

Besides, he is very suspicious of the boy’s alibi. He considers the boy’s alibi is ‘flimsy’. Indeed nobody saw the defendant at the cinema and he cannot remember the title of the film he is supposed to have watched.

He does not set / put great store by the defendant’s arguments. (To set great store by something)

He focuses on the weapon the kid is supposed to have used as well, trying to prove that his knife was a very unusual knife.

Juror n°4: “The man from the Slum”

At first, this juror decides not to justify his choice. We note that when the jurors took the customary preliminary vote, he hesitated to raise his hand, as if not quite certain of boy’s guilt, but influenced by the other jurors around him.

Juror n°5: “The painter”

This juror is not concerned with the fact that the defendant was unable to prove his innocence, nor does he try to explain the boy’s criminal mind by the environment in which he grew up. On the contrary, he is mainly concerned with the motive of the accused. For him, the fact that the boy had been beaten up repeatedly by his father prompted him to retaliate and stab him to death. As the broker says, everybody has a breaking point and the two slaps in the face may have been “two too many”. Contrary to the broker, the painter grants a lot of importance to the fact that the kid said he had been punched in the face and not slapped in the face.

Juror n°6: “The baseball man”

He is eager to go to the stadium to see a baseball game. He believed the boy was guilty right from the start. He focuses on the past of the accused, on his personal record. The assaults he had committed previously some of which involved the use of a knife: “Oh, he is really handy with a knife”.  

He’s still convinced of his guilt and asserts that discussing the case for a hundred years would not make him change his mind.

Juror n°7: Henry Fonda’s character who voted Not-Guilty

He is the only one to have doubts as to the guilt of the accused. He challenges all the other jurors’ arguments. He says the defendant does not have to prove his innocence. He is not convinced by the prosecution’s arguments. He believes the prosecution does not have a strong case as it relies only on the two testimonies of the witnesses and that even if the witnesses were under oath, they’re only humans and as such are liable to make mistakes. He also proves for instance that the kid’s knife is not as unusual as the prosecution or the broker claim.

Juror n°8: The old man

He does not get a chance to talk but he disagrees with the bigot’s arguments right from the start.

Juror n°9: A watchmaker (who is not a native speaker)

He is one of the jurors who are not given the opportunity to talk. However, as an immigrant, we understand that he is not receptive to the arguments of the bigot / he does not see the bigot’s arguments in a favourable light.

He sides with the man who grew up in a slum when the latter snaps at the insulting bigot.

Juror n°10: The bigot who is also a bully

He keeps interrupting the other jurors and breaking the rules that have been fixed by the foreman. He is cranky and cynical. He is a bully as he keeps interrupting everyone else in the room. He relies on the testimony of the witness who lives in the apartment across the street. But his arguments against the defendant are mainly motivated by pure racism and xenophobia.

To be prejudiced against someone

Juror n°11: The advertising man

He is nice, pleasant and accommodating and tries to appease the tension between the jurors. But he is also a little shallow (i.e. superficial). He trusts the testimonies of the two witnesses as “these people were under oath”, even though he concedes that a trial ‘is not an exact science’.

Juror n°12: The Foreman

Does not present any argument.

IV. Inconsistencies

It appears that Henry Fonda’s character has carried out his own investigation. This is improbable and in any case, it is totally forbidden for jurors to do so. If this element is very efficient from a dramatic perspective, it is one of the great inconsistencies of the film. Jurors have to rely on the evidence admitted in court only to come to a verdict. Jurors’ investigation contravenes / goes against the principle of the adversarial system according to which lawyers only have the right to cross-examine witnesses.

Another inconsistency of the movie is that juries are supposed to represent a cross-section of society. However we note that jurors in the film are exclusively white men (and as such do not represent minorities such as women for example). Even in the 1950s this would have been unusual.