__________ is/are overrated.

[1995hoo]

12 Angry Men glorifies jury misconduct. Jurors are not supposed to conduct their own investigations, introduce extraneous evidence, or assume facts not discussed during the trial. If something like that happened in real life, the judge would declare a mistrial faster than you can say "Jack Robinson". As one legal scholar pointed out "What would we think of the jury's behavior if the same misconduct led to convic-
tion rather than acquittal?"

You're making the not-necessarily-valid assumption that the judge would know that all of that happened.

[kernals12]

12 Angry Men glorifies jury misconduct. Jurors are not supposed to conduct their own investigations, introduce extraneous evidence, or assume facts not discussed during the trial. If something like that happened in real life, the judge would declare a mistrial faster than you can say "Jack Robinson". As one legal scholar pointed out "What would we think of the jury's behavior if the same misconduct led to convic-
tion rather than acquittal?"

You're making the not-necessarily-valid assumption that the judge would know that all of that happened.

So it's okay for them to break the law as long as they get away with it?

[Max Rockatansky]

Taking medium of movies too seriously in general is overrated.

[1995hoo]

12 Angry Men glorifies jury misconduct. Jurors are not supposed to conduct their own investigations, introduce extraneous evidence, or assume facts not discussed during the trial. If something like that happened in real life, the judge would declare a mistrial faster than you can say "Jack Robinson". As one legal scholar pointed out "What would we think of the jury's behavior if the same misconduct led to convic-
tion rather than acquittal?"

You're making the not-necessarily-valid assumption that the judge would know that all of that happened.

So it's okay for them to break the law as long as they get away with it?

"In Jersey everything's legal, as long as you don't get caught."
—Tweeter and the Monkey Man

[kernals12]

For that matter, I also dislike Goldilocks and the Three Bears. It's a dark tale about a juvenile delinquent who breaks into someone's house, eats their porridge, sits in their chairs, and sleeps in their beds.

[1995hoo]

Taking medium of movies too seriously in general is overrated.

I would expand that point: Taking obvious fiction seriously is extremely overrated. People who feel the need to take everything hyper-literally must lead a deprived existence because they apparently can't suspend disbelief and just plain be entertained. (That is, for example, based on physics as we know it, hyperspace travel is impossible, thus making the overwhelming majority of space movies impossible in real life. Likewise, time travel is impossible, so almost the entirety of the Back to the Future trilogy is impossible in real life. But who cares? Why ruin a good story just to pacify certain "special needs" types?)

[wanderer2575]

12 Angry Men glorifies jury misconduct. Jurors are not supposed to conduct their own investigations, introduce extraneous evidence, or assume facts not discussed during the trial. If something like that happened in real life, the judge would declare a mistrial faster than you can say "Jack Robinson". As one legal scholar pointed out "What would we think of the jury's behavior if the same misconduct led to convic-
tion rather than acquittal?"

Maybe I need to watch the movie again but I don't recall seeing extraneous evidence or hearing facts not discussed during the trial.  I heard points of reasonable doubt, including demonstrations of preconceived judgement.

Taking obvious fiction seriously is extremely overrated. People who feel the need to take everything hyper-literally must lead a deprived existence because they apparently can't suspend disbelief and just plain be entertained. (That is, for example, based on physics as we know it, hyperspace travel is impossible, thus making the overwhelming majority of space movies impossible in real life. Likewise, time travel is impossible, so almost the entirety of the Back to the Future trilogy is impossible in real life. But who cares? Why ruin a good story just to pacify certain "special needs" types?)

This.  Some of the quibbling on a Star Trek discussion forum on which I'm somewhat active boggles the mind.  Folks, it's fiction, and in the case of a TV or movie series the same point of fiction often varies from one episode to the next however a particular story requires it.

[1995hoo]

Taking obvious fiction seriously is extremely overrated. People who feel the need to take everything hyper-literally must lead a deprived existence because they apparently can't suspend disbelief and just plain be entertained. (That is, for example, based on physics as we know it, hyperspace travel is impossible, thus making the overwhelming majority of space movies impossible in real life. Likewise, time travel is impossible, so almost the entirety of the Back to the Future trilogy is impossible in real life. But who cares? Why ruin a good story just to pacify certain "special needs" types?)

This.  Some of the quibbling on a Star Trek discussion forum on which I'm somewhat active boggles the mind.  Folks, it's fiction, and in the case of a TV or movie series the same point of fiction often varies from one episode to the next however a particular story requires it.

And you know, I should have added that I have no objection whatsoever to a schoolteacher or college professor discussing the flaws in a science-fiction story. In an astronomy class, for example, it can be very useful to refer to faster-than-light travel in Star Wars or Star Trek in a discussion of relativity and time dilation to explain why, based on science as we know it, the sort of thing you see in those movies is impossible. It's a valid educational tool to contrast the idea of "warp speed" (or whatever) as being, say, a sort of "super Concorde" or similar with what would happen in real life if we could actually go that fast. (One of the few sci-fi works I've ever encountered that actually acknowledged time dilation was a book, The Forever War by Joe Haldeman. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I encountered it because it was optional reading in one of my college astronomy classes 30-some years ago. I never read the two sequels, though.)

[vdeane]

Now I'm curious to hear K12's thoughts on Jury Nullification.

[kernals12]

Maybe I need to watch the movie again but I don't recall seeing extraneous evidence or hearing facts not discussed during the trial.  I heard points of reasonable doubt, including demonstrations of preconceived judgement.

It's the most famous moment of the movie! When Henry Fonda slams that knife that he bought on his own into the table to prove that the supposedly unique knife could've belonged to anyone.

As for facts not discussed in trial:
The assumption it takes 10 seconds for an El Train to pass by a given point and would create too much noise for the downstairs neighbor to hear a scuffle above
That the downstairs neighbor could not have made it to the door of his apartment in time to see the defendant coming down the stairs.
That the defendant would not have stabbed his father "overhanded"

[kkt]

Taking medium of movies too seriously in general is overrated.

(or stage plays)

[thenetwork]

People who use numb3r5 for letters on their vanity license plates...

[wanderer2575]

Maybe I need to watch the movie again but I don't recall seeing extraneous evidence or hearing facts not discussed during the trial.  I heard points of reasonable doubt, including demonstrations of preconceived judgement.

It's the most famous moment of the movie! When Henry Fonda slams that knife that he bought on his own into the table to prove that the supposedly unique knife could've belonged to anyone.

As for facts not discussed in trial:
The assumption it takes 10 seconds for an El Train to pass by a given point and would create too much noise for the downstairs neighbor to hear a scuffle above
That the downstairs neighbor could not have made it to the door of his apartment in time to see the defendant coming down the stairs.
That the defendant would not have stabbed his father "overhanded"

That all still strikes me as points of reasonable doubt, but I certainly concede that I am not an attorney and that some who are attorneys have opined the discussions noted would not be allowed.

In any event, I agree with 1995hoo that unless a movie or television show is represented as a factual documentary, it should be regarded at entertainment value.  12 Angry Men doesn't glorify jury misconduct any more than an action-packed shoot-em-up movie glorifies crime and violence, or Chicago P.D. and CSI: Pick a Venue are documentaries of police procedures, or House M.D. and Chicago Med are true to life with hospital procedures.

[hbelkins]

Can you imagine being in that smoke-filled room with those 12 angry men?

[kkt]

Can you imagine being in that smoke-filled room with those 12 angry men?

I've been on a jury and we did not all agree to start with.  But it was a relatively small civil case, not criminal, so there were only six of us.

[Scott5114]

This.  Some of the quibbling on a Star Trek discussion forum on which I'm somewhat active boggles the mind.  Folks, it's fiction, and in the case of a TV or movie series the same point of fiction often varies from one episode to the next however a particular story requires it.

If your point of fiction varies from one episode to the next because your story requires it, you're a bad storyteller—the whole point of an ongoing serial of any sort is to provide the audience with a consistent, familiar setting, characters, etc. to return to. If things vary "just because" then you break the audience's suspension of disbelief by shattering the illusion of the story taking place in a consistent world. If you really can't tell a story based on the givens of the world you've established, that story doesn't belong in that world; it needs to go to a different one built for the purposes of that story.

[J N Winkler]

I have actually served on a jury, in an involuntary manslaughter/second-degree murder case that resulted in a verdict of acquittal after an initial ballot that was split roughly evenly between leaning guilty and leaning not guilty.  I would say we were all clear on the need to act on the basis of the evidence and testimony actually presented in court and not to do our own investigations.  I was certainly careful not just to avoid all media coverage of the case, but also to refrain from looking up the crime scene in Google StreetView.  (We were given the street address during voir dire.)  However, the law review article Kernals cited does note that jurors are free to apply their "common experience," and that can easily lead to performing experiments in the jury room to validate it, especially when confusing or incoherent witness testimony creates a perceived need to do so.

As for the demographic composition of our jury, we were six men and six women, as well as a blend of white, Asian, and Black.  At least four of us had at least a bachelor's degree, which is well above the 20% for Sedgwick County, and in fact I can think of only four I would have considered likely not to be educated to that level.  However, we had no Hispanics among us and sat in judgment on a defendant from that ethnic group.  Given the particular facts of this case, I suspect that actually worked in his favor.

[vdeane]

Having finally had time to read the linked PDF, I agree that searching for the knife, buying it, and then bringing it to jury deliberations is misconduct.  I can also see the details about the stabbing, as that would not be common knowledge.  I disagree on the train and the shuffling; those can be considered speculation based on common knowledge (heck, I've been exposed to SEVERAL trains going by overhead just driving to clinch roads in NYC!) and consistent with the jury's role of determining whether reasonable doubt exists.  The scenario for the movie's events to instead lead to a conviction is also flawed, as the only way for the scenario to happen as the author lays out would be for the jury to incorrectly rule on a "preponderance of evidence" standard instead of "beyond all reasonable doubt", which would be a very different kind of misconduct.

[hbelkins]

Can you imagine being in that smoke-filled room with those 12 angry men?

I've been on a jury and we did not all agree to start with.  But it was a relatively small civil case, not criminal, so there were only six of us.

I was thinking more about the overwhelming stench of smoke and how hard it would be to breathe, and how one would come out of that room reeking of secondhand smoke.

[LilianaUwU]

among us

That's one thing that is overrated. I prefer Trouble in Terrorist Town myself.

OK, I'll show myself out.

[kkt]

Can you imagine being in that smoke-filled room with those 12 angry men?

I've been on a jury and we did not all agree to start with.  But it was a relatively small civil case, not criminal, so there were only six of us.

I was thinking more about the overwhelming stench of smoke and how hard it would be to breathe, and how one would come out of that room reeking of secondhand smoke.

Fortunately for me, my jury service was after the jury room was made non-smoking.

[Rothman]

Interstellar gets dumber with each subsequent viewing.

[wanderer2575]

This.  Some of the quibbling on a Star Trek discussion forum on which I'm somewhat active boggles the mind.  Folks, it's fiction, and in the case of a TV or movie series the same point of fiction often varies from one episode to the next however a particular story requires it.

If your point of fiction varies from one episode to the next because your story requires it, you're a bad storyteller—the whole point of an ongoing serial of any sort is to provide the audience with a consistent, familiar setting, characters, etc. to return to. If things vary "just because" then you break the audience's suspension of disbelief by shattering the illusion of the story taking place in a consistent world. If you really can't tell a story based on the givens of the world you've established, that story doesn't belong in that world; it needs to go to a different one built for the purposes of that story.

I don't necessarily disagree, but you're telling us you've not watched Star Trek: Voyager without saying you've not watched Star Trek: Voyager.

[vdeane]

This.  Some of the quibbling on a Star Trek discussion forum on which I'm somewhat active boggles the mind.  Folks, it's fiction, and in the case of a TV or movie series the same point of fiction often varies from one episode to the next however a particular story requires it.

If your point of fiction varies from one episode to the next because your story requires it, you're a bad storyteller—the whole point of an ongoing serial of any sort is to provide the audience with a consistent, familiar setting, characters, etc. to return to. If things vary "just because" then you break the audience's suspension of disbelief by shattering the illusion of the story taking place in a consistent world. If you really can't tell a story based on the givens of the world you've established, that story doesn't belong in that world; it needs to go to a different one built for the purposes of that story.

I don't necessarily disagree, but you're telling us you've not watched Star Trek: Voyager without saying you've not watched Star Trek: Voyager.

I mean, Voyager could have used more consistency in that respect.  Too bad the higher-ups got cold feet and went back to pushing the reset button like TNG very early on.  I don't agree with some people who think the whole series should have been like Year of Hell, and I understand why they were cagey with carrying over damage and why they wouldn't want to have to count torpedos or shuttles, but they could have at least acknowledged the issues.  They even had the perfect opportunity: instead of coming up with a nonsensical "holodeck incompatable energy supply damaged the ship" explanation (which was also inconsistent with TNG) for why replicator use was rationed, they could have simply said that the replicators were being over-taxed by handing maintenance/replacement of things that would normally be done at a starbase (in fact, I used that as a headcanon to explain this mess, at least until Picard doubled down on the nonsense because the producers wanted to re-use the Ten Forward set at a point where it made no in-universe sense to do so; Prodigy even helped with the vehicle replicator).

They're much better about it now, but two important things changed: the shift away from broadcast/syndication to streaming, and the use of CGI over physical models (it's much easier to carry damage forward when you don't have to damage the model or make a new one and re-shoot all the stock footage).

But at least we got an amazing Tumblr post out of it: https://www.tumblr.com/abigailnussbaum/186449457530/star-trek-voyager-gothic

[Scott5114]

This.  Some of the quibbling on a Star Trek discussion forum on which I'm somewhat active boggles the mind.  Folks, it's fiction, and in the case of a TV or movie series the same point of fiction often varies from one episode to the next however a particular story requires it.

If your point of fiction varies from one episode to the next because your story requires it, you're a bad storyteller—the whole point of an ongoing serial of any sort is to provide the audience with a consistent, familiar setting, characters, etc. to return to. If things vary "just because" then you break the audience's suspension of disbelief by shattering the illusion of the story taking place in a consistent world. If you really can't tell a story based on the givens of the world you've established, that story doesn't belong in that world; it needs to go to a different one built for the purposes of that story.

I don't necessarily disagree, but you're telling us you've not watched Star Trek: Voyager without saying you've not watched Star Trek: Voyager.

I've watched Voyager, yes. But I also put myself through ad-libbing a story every week, so I've been on the storytellers' side enough to know what is expected of me in that role.