Description about Time to Kill

Similarity one 12 Angry Men and a Time to Kill The play, 12 Angry Men, and the film, A Time to Kill, have a similar theme.

In 12 Angry Men, a Latino is accused of stabbing his father to death, where a guilty verdict would mean a death sentence. In A Time to Kill, a black man took the law into his own hands, killing two alleged rapists and the sentence for this man, if found guilty meant death in a gas chamber. The play and film both involve prejudice against two commonly accused minorities in America.All jurors were white and with the combination of racism it made it seem like injustice was certain.

For example, Jake Brigance, the lawyer for Carl Lee filed for a change of venue. The reason for this was that he knew the jury would be comprised of white jurors, where his client was of African American decent. He knew that a white jury would be racially prejudicial towards an African American defendant. At this time in America, such an assertion would not have been unfounded. Similarly, in 12 Angry Men racial prejudice towards the Latino boy was also apparent.

At one point of time it seemed like the Latino boy would be executed, because nearly everyone would have found him guilty. It was stated that “So far eleven jurors are predisposed to convict him of the murder charges, only one juror, Mr. Davis believed his innocence. ” If the jury system was not based on unanimous consent, then the Latino boy would have died. This is simply due to racial prejudice and it is purely unjust.

In a court of law, the jury is the fact finder and not a social commentator.Similarly, most of the jurors in A Time to Kill were inclined to convict Carl Lee, because the film showed several scenes where the jury was discussing the case and a show of hands in regards to a guilty verdict was requested and most lifted their hand. This is very similar to 12 Angry Men where the race determines innocence or guilt. Justice in both cases was nearly decided on the color of their skin and not on the facts.

At one point in the film, when the doctor for the defense was discredited, the whole jury was convinced of Carl Lee’s guilt.However, strong and emotional summation altered the verdict from guilty to innocent on the grounds of insanity. Justice prevailed in both cases, another similarity. However, both cases showed how race has corrupted the minds of people and how deeply race can affect justice.

No matter what people say, racial prejudices exist and will most likely forever exist, but in both cases, justice overruled injustice. Similarity Two 12 Angry Men and I have a Dream 12 Angry Men and I have a Dream have the similarity of standing up for inequality before the law.King stood up for inequality in regards to race and how two separate kinds of law seemed to apply to whites and African Americans. In the film, the character that Juror 11, represented the young boy accused of murder , his idea of representing the disadvantage and less fortune is very analogous with Martin Luther king beliefs.

s a refugee from Europe, Juror #11 has witnessed great injustices. That is why he is intent on administering justice as a jury member. He sometimes feels self-conscious about his foreign accent. He conveys a deep appreciation for democracy and America’s legal system.Inequality and consequent injustice had different causes in the film and the speech.

In the speech, King stated that inequality before the law was caused because of race. He stated that, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. ” King realized and understood that the United States Constitution applied differently to people depending on the color of their skin. His determination to stand up for this injustice caused by inequality before the law is similar to the play.The play and Speech both involve prejudice against two commonly accused minorities in America.

All jurors were white and with the combination of racism it made it seem like injustice was certain. 12 Angry Men racial prejudice towards the Latino boy was also apparent. At one point of time it seemed like the Latino boy would be executed, because nearly everyone would have found him guilty. It was stated that “So far eleven jurors are predisposed to convict him of the murder charges, only one juror, Mr. Davis believed his innocence.

” If the jury system was not based on unanimous consent, then the Latino boy would have died.This is simply due to racial prejudice and it is purely unjust. In a court of law, the jury is the fact finder and not a social commentator. Justice prevailed in both cases, another similarity.

However, both cases showed how race has corrupted the minds of people and how deeply race can affect justice. No matter what people say, racial prejudices exist and will most likely forever exist, but in both cases, justice overruled injustice. In both the speech and play, the similarity is inequality before the law leading to an injustice.Inequality is the similarity, but the causes of injustice in the speech and play are based upon racial segregation and prejudice Difference Two A Time to Kill and I have a Dream The second difference is the way that justice can be achieved.

Justice can be achieved or appears to be achieved by violence as well as through peaceful means. For example, in the novel, A Time to Kill, Cal resorts to violence in order to pursue his idea of justice. Carl believed that he could achieve justice and overcome the prejudice by killing the two rapists, that way the black community may stand up together.They will stand up fight the Prejudice violently just like Malcolm X talked about. This idea profoundly contradicted Martin Luther King’s ambition to overcome prejudice through peace and non-violent method. This is contrary to King’s speech, who believes that justice can be addressed through peaceful means.

Unlike Carl, King does not believe in violence or prejudice. His message was about equality: “Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God’s children. King places himself on an equal footing with every other American, he believes that is justice.Carl believes, initially that he could overcome the violence and the prejudicial treatments through violence. He compares himself to Malcolm X; he believes violence will attain justice through the radicalized principle.

King believes peace, hope and dreams will attain justice; a peaceful realization that we are all God’s children and not some slave owners and others slaves. His idea that slave owners and slaves should sit together at the table in a brotherhood is very symbolic.It conjures Biblical images. And this is where the difference lies. King alludes to the Bible and God in his pursuit of justice.

Raskolnikov alludes to Malcolm X his pursuit and idea of justice. In the end, one does attain justice, the other goes through trembling and long criminal trial, which in itself is a form of justice. However, the means to get there are completely different and this shows that justice can be, has been and will always be obtained with means that may or may not justify the ends.