There is a movie that has been remade countless times, douban rating 9.5, it is "Twelve Angry Men".
Telling the story of a boy who grew up in a slum who is accused of murdering his biological father, the bystanders and murder weapons of the case are presented as ironclad evidence, and the 12 members of the jury discuss and restore the truth.
And today I recommend to you that South Korea has released a new movie similar to "Twelve Angry Men", "Jurors".
Jurors ★★★★
Recommended reason: "Twelve Angry Men" Korean version
Duration: 114min
Based on true events in South Korea, the film tells the story of the acquittal of a son accused of murdering his mother during a trial in Seoul in December 2008 on suspicion of killing a relative.
In the film, because it is the first time that South Korea has implemented the juror system, all kinds of media have paid great attention to it.
The court also attached great importance to it, and carefully reviewed and selected 8 jurors of different ages, genders and occupations from among the people.
Park Kyung-sik plays the male protagonist Nam-woo, a young entrepreneur who is applying for civil aid, and he happens to be selected as the last juror who knows nothing about the law.
In the case of the trial, the defendant has pleaded guilty, and the jury only needs to determine the sentence and decide to sentence the defendant for several years.
During the trial, the prosecution found the defendant not only guilty but also deliberately murdered because the guards patrolling the neighborhood saw his "body dumping" process.
The medical examiner also determined that the cause of the mother's death was a hammer strike on the head.
One of the jurors, an uncle with 30 years of experience in cleaning the body, said that the deceased could not have been killed by a hammer, but because he did not have a professional forensic certificate, his statement could only be passed.
The defendant's uncle also testified that the relationship between mother and son was not good and that the defendant was violent.
The defendant's daughter denied testimony from her uncle, who had not been to their house several times a year, crying that her father could not have killed her grandmother.
At the scene, a petition for the dissolution of family relations filled out by the defendant in order to obtain a minimum guarantee was found, and the words were full of complaints about the mother's incompetence, so it was reasonably suspected that the defendant had a quarrel with the mother and killed the mother by mistake.
The defendant, who had been silent, was suddenly agitated and denied that he had written the application form.
At the end of the trial, when it was the turn of the jury to submit a verdict of guilt or innocence, the man was still unable to give a verdict, and he believed that the jurors could not decide whether a person was guilty so easily.
He never believed that the defendant had deliberately murdered him, and speculated that it was probably the wound on his head that his mother had caused during the fall.
He also wondered if the guards had misread it at the time, and that the person who "threw the body" was not actually the defendant, so he wanted to apply to go to the scene to investigate.
But after the field trial, the probability of finding the wrong view was basically non-existent, and the jurors could only sign the sentencing result of the deliberate murder.
Everyone thought that it was over, but the male protagonist suddenly found that the handwriting on the dissolution application form was not the defendant's.
(The application form on the left, the handwritten note by the defendant on the right)
The male protagonist also found that if his mother was killed at that time, he would have shouted for help, but he did not, unless the mother herself did not want to live.
It turned out that the truth of the matter was that in order not to delay her son and granddaughter, to get a higher and more stable minimum guarantee than her current salary, the mother wrote the application form for dissolution of family relations in the name of her son, and then chose to jump off the building to commit suicide.
The son wanted to hold his mother, but he had no fingers, and the prosthesis was detached due to excessive force, and he failed to pull the mother up, but he was seen by the guards and caused a misunderstanding.
The defendant initially pleaded guilty because he rushed downstairs to save his mother but fell on the empty stairs and suffered a cerebral hemorrhage, causing him to remember the situation that night and was afraid whether he had actually killed his mother.
At the last hearing to announce the outcome of the defendant's trial, all the jurors insisted that the defendant was not guilty.
Although the opinions of the jurors in the courtroom can only be referenced and cannot interfere with the decision of the presiding judge, the presiding judge also adheres to his original intention and principles to declare the defendant innocent.
Although this film has a warm and happy ending, the defendant has not been unjustly tortured, but it also exposes a large number of social problems.
For example, the president of the Court only requires the presiding judge's judgment this time to look good.
The court agreed to jurors' on-site investigation requests not to pursue the correctness of the trial but because it was good enough.
The criminal investigation process was also hastily taken into account because the defendant had pleaded guilty.
The forensic doctor knew that the wound was probable not hit by a hammer, but he stiffened his mouth in order not to admit that his judgment was wrong.
Most of the jurors didn't really have their own ideas at all, and just blindly followed the lawyers and the police.
If the case had not been insisted upon by the male protagonist, the defendant would have been held in prison for 25 years, not to mention the initial sentencing recommendation was the death penalty.
The film brutally places the real society before our eyes, judges and forensic doctors care only about their own reputation, and most of the jurors who have nothing to do with the defendants do not care about the life and death of others, but only as a formal task.
Most people in society are actually like this, only care about their own interests, coldly watch the plight of others, the world is in turmoil, all for the sake of profit, but they have never thought that maybe they also need help.
This is where unjust, false and wrongly decided cases arise, such as the recent "teacher reported corruption 17 years ago and was shot and killed"
However, there will always be good people in society who do not hesitate to lend a helping hand, and the jurors in the film, in addition to the male protagonist, are also working hard for the defendant's innocence in the end.
In real life, in the past decade, the innocence rate of jurors participating in the trial in South Korea is 3 times higher than that of the general trial, and the suspects in the Hunan teacher burial case have also been arrested, and it is believed that the shooting case can also have a good result in the end.
Society is always progressing, so be kind to people.
Pay attention to [Traffic Jun] If you also like our article, come and like Oh~