Scout did not understand at the moment why the men were there, but her father knew full well that if he did not stop them someone would be murdered. Atticus was able to confront the men calmly, and because of his rationality, he was able to save a man’s life.
This quote ties in with Twelve Angry Men because Roth is saying that a person can wait for something to happen on its own, or they can get up and do something about it. That is what Juror Eight did; he was the first to vote not guilty, and he stood up for the boy because he did not believe that the kid was completely guilty. His actions were what made the jury see why he voted not guilty and he saved the kid’s life by standing alone and showing his
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.
The public really liked the way they ran the system, always speaking publically to ensure safety and ease for kids who are lost. Although, the picture the public failed to see at first ultimately led to a harsh and difficult lifestyle for these kids. Both judges were very demanding, for example in cash for kids, judge Ciavarella didn’t put up with any kid. Whether it was a small behavioral offense or a larger criminal offense, he treated it the same. Ciavarella
He starred in ‘Good Will Hunting’ which was a great film and this lead to him winning accolades as the therapist. Which he plays the role of the therapist. He continued on with excellent career especially after winning so much with this movie. From 2002 to 2009 he was able to play I movies like ‘License to Wed’, ‘One Hour Photo’ and ‘Old Dogs. We saw a slight deviation from him as he chose to do less of comedy and more drama as his career was coming to an
Title: Fallacies in the movie ’12 Angry Men’ Name: Prerna Singh Roll No. : 13110082 Word Count: The movie ’12 Angry Men’ beautifully presents a number of critical thinking aspects. Fallacies are depicted with excellent examples. Here is a list of the fallacies observed. Every juror had his own set of prejudices which gave way to so many fallacies to come up.
When in the court, he exercises his empathy for Tom Robinson to the jury as well by claiming that he is,”confident that you gentlemen will review without passion the evidence you have heard, come to a decision, and restore this defendant to his family” (Lee 209). Unlike the majority of the population, Atticus was fully empathetic of a man that was accused of assault and rape because his judgment was not shrouded by a cloud of bias like the audience, jury, and the judge. He knows that the court case may take part in public humiliation; therefore, he keeps on the low and makes his points concisely to prevent the chaotic nature that the public hopes for. His empathy for the situation of Tom Robinson stretches to clearing his name as well as his reputation as a human, and in those times of social racism, that was not common. Atticus also had habits that were consistent with his display of instinctive empathy in his daily
The men go over many of the testimonies in the jury room, acting them out, proving they cannot be true, and arguing the logistics. The boy’s defense lawyer should have made these points clearer to the men. Although, some people would say that the boy should have contacted his own lawyer in if he wanted quality. Because the boy was young, he was probably not able to afford his own lawyer. Either way, I believe the lawyer should have helped him out.
While both end up voting the same way, their approaches throughout the majority of the film are vastly different. To start, the third juror is much more factual, stating in the film, “Okay let’s get the facts… and he ran to the door of his apartment and the boy!”(12 Angry Men) This immediately shows the viewer that Juror 3 will base the majority of his argument in fact. In contrast, Juror 8 feels that communicating with the other jurors and piecing together their views is a better way to solve the case. This is shown when Juror 8 says, “There were eleven votes guilty. It’s not so easy for me to send a boy off to die without talking about it first.”(12 Angry Men) In the first difference, Juror 7 falls with Juror 3, believing much more of the facts than discussion.
This man may be a bit timid in part due to his old age, but his quiet nature also makes him insightful, noticing very specific details about witnesses that many others on the jury missed. He seems to come off as the most respectable and well mannered man out of the twelve. He 's the first to change his vote to not guilty, mostly to give Juror 8 a chance to make his case and out of respect for his motives in gambling for support. In talking about the older man that gave testimony it 's almost as though he 's talking about himself, revealing that he wants to be useful and to do something valuable, even if it 's just this once as a juror. As you may have noticed out of all the twelve men in the movie, each and everyone of them has unique personalities, that all at one point throughout the trial, played a very effective role in deciding this boy 's fate.