Later in the book, the court case occurs. Atticus does his best to defend Tom Robinson, but the men on the jury decide the verdict for each other before the trial starts. At the end, “Judge Taylor was polling the jury” (282), which concludes that Robinson is “‘Guilty… guilty… guilty… guilty’” (282). Not one person, it seems, admits that Robinson is most likely innocent. His race decides for them, because they understand no other way to think than in a racist manner.
The knife that was used to kill the father was said to be “one-of-a-kind”. Mr. Davis who believes the boy isn’t guilty, pulls out a similar knife after the other jurors try to convince him that the boy was guilty because the knife was unique and there wasn’t another knife like that anywhere. The tenth juror is a bigot man who attacks right away and doesn’t change his mind about what he thinks. In the beginning he describes the boy as “one of them”. In "12 Angry Men" as an Integrative Review of Social Psychology Carrie Fried states that, “The movie allows students to examine how situational forces can affect the behavior of individuals even though the individuals have strong and diverse personalities.
Juror three was stubborn and didn’t consider the thoughts of other or the facts that others had brought up. The square is outlined by a bright red because most of the movie juror three is an angry, hot tempered man. On the inside of the square, it fades from a dark blue to a very light blue. As seen in figure one the square fades on the inside, the darker blue shows the power that juror three thought he had and as it fades to the lighter blue it represents the sorrow that he has for losing connection with his son. All through the movie juror three was stubborn and his temper was put to the test when asked “Are you his executioner,” he responded with “I am one of them” (12 Angry Men).
Complete description of all “Fallacies” in the movie “12 ANGRY MEN”: The film “Twelve Angry Men” involves a lot of logical fallacies, some of which are quite prominent and provocative. Like for eg. The fallacies which involve racism and bigotry of Juror #10 and the anger revealed which manifests into personal anguish by Juror#3. The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start.
Black e mo…”(Morrison 65) This forced her to become angry and since she has no one to shout at without being shouted back at, she ends the cycle being at the lowest of the low. So she starts to believe everything that she is told is true. All of this harassment from everyone in her life pushes her emotional and mental capacity to the breaking point until she drowns in the pursuit of trying to fix everything that she has ever been picked on for. She becomes insane and disconnected from reality, living in her own bubble of a world. Gaines uses a similar setting in A Gathering of old men to produce the same thematic conclusion.
Before their dismissal, the judge looks down at the group and bequeaths them to “separate the fact from the fancy.” Despite his harsh tone, we quickly realize only one of them takes this statement seriously. That man is Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), the lone dissenting voice during the jury 's disturbingly jovial initial vote to convict the boy of first-degree murder, which would send him to the electric chair. Juror 8 has questions, a lot of them that he wants to discuss further, much to the chagrin of his fellow jurors. “There 's always one,” yells sarcastic Juror 10 (Ed Begley), who, like many of his fellow deliberators, desires a quick
With the more corroboration that Juror #8 gave, the more jurors began to believe that the man might not be guilty but instead innocent. In act III of Twelve Angry Men, eventually, after countless discussions, including the substantial amount of evidence that was given, Juror #8 was able to persuade all but one of the jurors. The juror was eventually persuaded into switching his vote from guilty to innocent. Ultimately, the jurors unanimously voted that the man, which was accused of murdering his father,
TWELVE ANGRY MEN In shape, "12 Angry Men" is a court dramatization. In object, it 's a brief training in those entries of the Constitution that guarantee litigants a reasonable trial and the assumption of blamelessness. It has a sort of stark straightforwardness: Other than a brief setup and epilog, the whole film happens inside of a little New York City juror room, on "the most smoking day of the year," as twelve men discuss the destiny of a youthful respondent accused of killing his dad. In the film, there is a hypothesis around why the litigant couldn 't recollect the name of the motion picture he had seen driving the members of the juror to accept that the kid had lied about heading off to the motion pictures. On the other hand, getting
Their decisions are extremely biased initially either due to the background of the boy or what each of them holds as morally correct i.e. the sheer act in question of a boy killing his father is unthought-of no matter what the situation. One of the central characters in the movie is that of the Jury Foreman, played by Martin Balsam. His role is vital because he is responsible for guiding the whole discussion among the rest of the jurors and organizing an efficient system to ensure everyone’s point of view is taken into account. He comes across as authoritative on multiple occasions when he tries to silence any brewing arguments.
When they took their first vote eleven of them voted guilty and Juror eight was the only person that voted not guilty when asked why he said, “ There were eleven votes for guilty. It’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about in first” (Twelve Angry Men). Juror eight had to remain brave to be working against the other eleven jurors. Throughout the movie, Juror eight is the only juror that constantly has to prove something, he did his job very well, but the lighter yellow on the inside of the shape shows that juror eight came on more fearless than he was. Because juror eight had a single opinion throughout the trial, a rounded rectangle best represents his character.