12 Angry Men!

When I first heard that this movie was in black & white, I must admit, my heart sank a little. I don't know why, but I've just got the impression that black & white movies are boring. This goes to show that interpretative perception really affects us. But anyway, this movie has proven that my perception of black & white movies should be thrown out the window. It's hard to imagine a movie being shot in only one set for 90 minutes of the movie, and yet still be so interesting. Therefore, I rate this movie 4 stars, taking into account that it was black & white, and only had one main set.

-

The movie revolves around the tale of 12 men, as they deliberate the guilt or innocence of a defendant, an 18 year old Latino charged of first-degree murder of his father, on the basis of reasonable doubt. At first, when a first vote was held, to see where the jurors stood, it was 11 guilty against 1 not guilty. Juror #8 pleaded that the boy was not guilty, but only for the sake of argument, to extend the discussion, not because he himself thought that the boy was innocent. But as all the other jurors gave their reasons for casting the guilty vote, Juror #8 saw an opening and tries to convince the other jurors to vote "not guilty". In a second ballot, Juror #9 changed his vote from "guilty" to "not guilty", to support Juror #8's cause, not to send a boy to die just like that. 

As the story enfolds, personality and characters of the jurors were revealed, skeptical jurors such as juror #3, to indifferent jurors such as juror #12. Some were pressured into changing their votes, while others truly believed in the boy not being guilty. "Reasonable doubt" it appears, was one that managed to win many jurors to vote "not guilty". It means that if the jurors really believed the boy was guilty then they should vote "guilty", however, if there is one small detail from the evidence that doesn't seem right, or one mistake on the witnesses' part, the jurors should vote "not guilty". But the a few jurors did not seem to get that, and when they realised it, changed their vote to "not guilty". 

Juror #7 did not seem to have opinion on the case, and could not wait to get over with the discussion so he could get out of the place.  He voted at first "guilty" because he figured that most people would vote that and if he voted it as well, the discussion could be quickly dealt with. But as majority started shifting their votes to "not guilty", Juror #7 got impatient and changed his votes too, in order to speed up the process. "I don't know about the rest of 'em but I'm gettin' a little tired of this yakity-yack and back-and-forth, it's gettin' us nowhere. So I guess *I'll* have to break it up; I change my vote to "not guilty." Juror #7 is one who is in my opinion, the true "mean" one, because of his unwillingness to take part in the conversation, he is not inputing any ideas of to the boy's position. Thus, he is leaving the boy's fate to the hands of others, which is worse than those condemning him to death or fighting for him to live, at least they have a reason.

Juror #4 represented the jurors who voted because they thought it was the right thing to do in their opinion, unlike Juror #7. Juror #4 was sceptical about the arguments disproving the evidences and witnesses' statements, but when he himself and his glasses were used as an example to support the disproving theory, he finally believed them and changed his vote. He changed his vote because he was convinced that there was "reasonable doubt", not just because he wanted the discussion to be over with.

-

Best bit? When the jurors manage to find something suspicious about the evidence and the witnesses' testimonies, and through reenacting the scene (the old man hobbling in time to see the boy running out of the house), using the jurors' own personal experience (juror #7 and his spectacle marks), reevaluating the testimonies (woman who saw the scene through the train windows), which made the other jurors doubt their own perception and change their votes.

Favourite juror? Juror #8! For his belief that a human's life should not be taken lightly, for his persistence in persuading the other jurors, and for his keen eye in spotting the truth among the lies.

Wen Wen (:

Cyber Bullying

• Defamation – harm done to a person’s reputation, and slander (spoken) versus libel (written) Slander and libel are both equally damaging as they both cause humiliation and embarrassment to the victim.

• Whether a statement is seen or heard by a third party or parties It does matter, because some things are only horrible when they are spread among many parties, such as rumours and gossip. 

• Whether the identity of the target is clear If the identity of the target is not clear, then the person might be simply expressing his overall feelings toward a particular type of person, which is bad but it does not have a direct victim. On the other hand, if the target is clear, then there is a victim which would undoubtedly feel hurt and embarrassed. This would be direct bullying.

• Anonymity – does it make the perpetrator more or less responsible? By the perpetrator remaining anonymous, this shows what a coward and how irresponsible that person is. The person is still equally responsible and the fact that he/she is anonymous does not make a difference. However, this will definitely affect the feelings of the victim.

• Harassment – what does it involve? Harassment is basically when a person is made upset, disturbed or threatened by another person. It involves a wide range of offensive acts.

• Duty to provide a safe work or study environment – what roles do schools and teachers play? By providing a safe environment, only can students and workers study and work effectively and productively. It is also the rights of students and workers to be protected from any form of threats  at school or their workplace. Schools and teachers play an essential role in stopping these threats, as they are the ones in charge and have the authority to reprimand perpetrators.

• Right to freedom of expression – what limits should be placed on it? Freedom of expression is a basic human right. However, when it creates unrest and chaos among the people, that freedom should be restricted in order to maintain peace and harmony. Discriminatory topics are ones that should be curbed completely, while issues that are controversial, should be controlled as to not get out of line.

• Right to security of person – should people be protected from written or verbal attacks? I think yes. A person should have the right to be protected from all these, provided the attacks are based on false accusations. If it is the truth however, then the person should deserve it.

• Defences and confounding factors – what makes a possibly libellous statement okay? In my opinion, no libellous statement is okay or even possibly okay. Unless the person involved agrees with the person who released the libellous statement and feels that it is not offensive or provocative. 

• Truth – when the statement is accurate If the statement is the truth, then the person involved should just accept it because the person who released it has done nothing wrong, unless the statement is copyrighted and the person who released it had no rights to release it.

• Fair comment - a legitimate journalistic intent There is nothing wrong with it. The person is merely voicing out his opinion and giving feedback in a way. No offence was intended, and thus it is the person is not in the wrong.

• “The reasonable person” - how offensive does something have to be before it becomes libellous? When it has truly offended someone and has a major impact on his/her reputation and other people's impression of that person. 

Amnesty for Death Row Inmates?

We believe human rights abuses anywhere are the concern of people everywhere.

So, outraged by human rights abuses but inspired by hope for a better world, we work to improve people’s lives through campaigning and international solidarity.

- Amnesty International

Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights to be respected and protected for everyone. We had the privilege of getting a visit from Miss Davina and Miss Nora, who came to talk about the abolishment of the death penalty. There have been many arguments revolving around this topic and I must admit that I was not really in favour of the abolishment. However, I still listened to the presentation with an open-mind.

In my opinion, I think that the death penalty is here for many reasons. To act as a punishment, and as a deterrent as well. But the most important of all, I think, is that it is a safe and infallible way of ensuring that person does not commit the same crime again, eg: murdering and killing. If you put a man in prison, when he gets released, who is to say that he will commit the crime again? Who is to say he is not gonna rob and steal again? Who is to say that he is gonna rape and murder again?

-

The main reason Amnesty International argued for the abolishment of the death penalty is due to the 3rd article in the Universal Decleration of Human Rights. Yes, I do agree with that statement. Everyone should have the right to life, but when that person has taken another life, is that right still rightfully his? Thus I still feel that in certain cases, it calls for an exception. Such as when by taking a life, we are saving a thousand others. Isn't the lives of thousands of innocent people more significant than the life of a puny convict?

-

Death penalty is irreversible and claims innocent victims. They can never be brought back to life.

When I first heard this, I had a sudden waver in my judgement. I thought that it was so true. That once people were dead, it was irreversible. That an innocent life would be lost just like that. But then, as I delve deeper, I realised that this was not a fault of the death penalty itself, but rather something simple that would almost be impossible to eradicate, human error. If a person was to be wrongly convicted, and he had received 20 canes as his punishment, but then it was found out that he was actually innocent, would the torture and humiliation he went through be reversed? NO. The ramifications might be very much more severe, but still, emphasising the word "irreversible", it applies to this and many other situations as well. If humans could be a hundred percent efficient, this problem wouldn't even have to exist at all. But then alot of other crisis would not have existed either.

-

Death penalty is discriminatory and is often used disproportionately against the poor, minorities and members of racial, ethnic and religious communities.

This, I feel, should not be an impediment to the execution of the death penalty. Because again, it is the fault of humans. Not the punishment itself. The person who determines who is executed is the one who is guilty. These people have abused their power and the law, which is a serious offence in itself. Let's just say a judge disliked black people, and he had simply sentenced an innocent black person to 50 strokes of caning, should we abolish caning then? Because it is used disproportionately?

-

Death penalty is a cruel punishment.

How cruel is death actually? The road leading to death might be cruel, inhumane, ruthless, painful, but death itself, what does it mean? Everybody dies eventually. So it's actually just dying a bit earlier. In fact, the death penalty allows the criminal to escape from the world of suffering. Compared to life imprisonment, where the criminal would be held captive behind bars, waking up everyday only to be aware that his freedom is lost, cut off from the outside world, a quick, painless death, and it will all be over. So, the death penalty. Cruel? Or not?

-

Numerous studies have shown that death penalty has no deterrent effect.

Well, I don't know how criminal minds operate, so my thinking might be different from theirs. But if I were a drug smuggler, and I found out that the punishment for drug trafficking was death, I would definitely think twice before trafficking drugs again. I feel that the reason why studies have not shown the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent, is due to other uncontrollable factors. Such as in science, where an experiment is only considered fair and valid if all the controlled variables are controlled. Thus, factors such as the strictness of the authority of the particular country, might have influenced the deterrent effect of the death penalty. So I remain neutral about this point.

-

However, I strongly disagree about the point made to go against the abolishment of the death penalty, which is that the death penalty is CHEAPER. Although it is a very serious issue which is being considered by governments, as Mr James pointed out, I can't help but find it ridiculous. How can we put a price tag on a person's life? In that case,  we should just hang all the inmates, so there will be no more need for prisons and thus save billions of money! The reason for authorities to order an underserving punishment is because it saves money. That I seriously can't comprehend. It's money against humanity, money against justice, money against all things worthy. But as they say, "Money makes the world go round", so there must be some mighty reason why people put money ahead of everything else.

-

Forgive me for being sceptical, but I do not feel that Amnesty had made any points which could possibly even change my mind, except for that thing about the mandatory death sentence and that people deserve a second chance. Therefore, I think that the death penalty should not be abolished, but rather amended and revised, so as the mandatory death sentence would no longer stand, as it would be major injustice to those who are in actual fact innocent. I also is in agreement that people deserve a second chance, so there could be perhaps a rehabilitation period, in which the convict would be given a chance to redeem themselves. However, if the efforts appear fruitless, as the convict shows no sign of remorse or regret, then the execution should be carried out. That way, there will not be a chance of them escaping and creating more havoc, and claiming more victims. I also feel that not all criminal acts are deserving of the death penalty, only ones that involves the life of another, or huge amounts of victims. So laws should amended in that sense, to make sure that the death penalty does not execute its job "too well". 

Wen Wen (:

Perceptions!

Sensory:
In relation to the human's five senses, sight, smell, hearing, touch and taste. The sensation sensed by the sensory organs as it is.

Interpretation:
What one understands from the sensation gained from one's senses, and thus how that person deduces and thinks what that sense might represent.

-

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

Biologist: Seen as a test subject, something that can be used as evidence, and in a way seeing the tree only as an advantage and benefit to the human race, but does not really treasure the tree.

Logger: He will view the tree as a way to gain more money, to provide him with a job. So only thinks of the tree as his source of profit.

Environmentalist: Truly enjoys the environment and cares about the tree and thus would really want the tree to be protected.

Native from Sarawak: Thinks of the tree as part of his roots and attaches a lot of importance on the tree, therefore has connections to the tree and values it very much.

-

How does our education & culture affect our perception?

Our education and culture basically defines who we are. It's the way we've been brought up and so we are likely to follow what we have learned. It shapes our understanding which in turn determines how we see the world. Thus, it also affects our perception of things.

Bind, Torture, Kill

ps: click to enlarge (:

Palace of Justice!

Dear bloggie,

On 24th February 2011, My friends from Year 10 and I went on a trip to THE PALACE OF JUSTICE!  It was an awfully nice place, it looked like a high class hotel. Anyway bloggie, we had the opportunity to sit through an actual court case, which was really interesting, although i was kind of hoping for a criminal case. We went in halfway through and I could hardly grab what they were saying, except for a few words like "law suit" and "mental illness". Luckily I had friends to explain to me about it :)

Through this trip, I have learned a lot about Malaysia's judicial system. It really enlightened me on the way the laws work. The Q&A session was especially beneficial as the very kind lady thoroughly explained and answered most of our questions. But what truly surprised me bloggie, was when the very kind lady told us that juvenile delinquents were exempted from being sent to prison, and were sent to this school, Henry Gurney School, instead. What's more, when they "graduated" from the school, they would have a totally clean record, not a single trace of dirt. And the way the very kind lady said it, it sounded like Henry Gurney School was the ultimate heaven for kids with attitude problems. Now bloggie, I don't know if it is just me, or does this sound wrong. I mean I've watched movies and all, and I know for a fact that if a bunch of juvenile delinquents were to be locked up in one single place, things will not look good.

Another thing that was constantly nagging me is that thing about diplomatic immunity. Seeing as that we had a couple of diplomats' kids in our class, I did not take this lightly as I would have a couple of months ago. There was confusion on whether those in our class with diplomatic immunity could commit a crime and get away with it. But after some clarification from the very kind lady, we found out that their country of origin could still charge them on that offence. Ain't that a relief bloggie? But I still to shudder to think of what could happen if their country refused to charge them. Let's not go there shall we?

The Palace of Justice also had this amazing library, with every kind of law book you could possibly find!  Although I must admit that I was not particularly excited about going through pages and pages of words and no pictures on law, the amount of information stored in the library is one I truly admire. The museum, as I think it is called, also featured many real life examples of the "world of law", from testaments to judges' black robes.

All in all, the trip was extremely fun and meaningful. It was such a privilege one of the few civilians to visit, and not to mention the first school ever to step foot in to the Palace of Justice. What an honour :D

That's all for now, bloggie.
Teehee,
Wen Wen (: