Thank you, gentlemen” (Judges Voice). The jury enters the jury room and twelve men shuffle in. This play sets up a murder mystery that keeps the audience on their feet and looking for answers. The jury consisted of twelve stubborn men. Eleven men found the boy guilt, while juror eight was the only man that wanted to review the case over again to make sure the jury was making the correct decision.
The purpose of this essay is to examine groupthink and to represent Dr. Irving Janis’ symptoms of groupthink in the film. After viewing the film 12 Angry Men, this movie shows a jury of men trying to decide the verdict in the case of a teenager accused of murdering his father. A simple task for the jury deciding on if the teenager is guilty or not guilty turns into irrational decision-making. The 1957 film is an immense example of how groupthink can
One person can make a difference in a situation. Although we all hate to be the odd ball, sometimes it’s good to show what we really think. In the play Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose demonstrates how the power of an individual in society can make a difference in someone’s life, which is represented though juror number eight. There would be no play without juror number eight. He was the one to make everyone think differently, to think twice about the boy.
Interestingly enough, on the previous page Juror Ten is called out by Juror Four (60). The foreman also has some prejudice at the beginning of the case. He brings up another case that is similar to the one they are doing. He says the defendant accused of murder was let off and “eight years later they found out that he’d actually done it, anyway” (12). Prejudice clouds a person’s judgement and does not allow the individual to see all the facts.
Juror number 3 went off knowing that they’ll spend some time in the room debating whether the boy was the murderer of his father, along with the other jurors. The way juror number three was displaying in a way was that he was judging the boy since he was in the courtroom and mentioned he looked as guilty as ever, but this preconceived notion goes more into depth with the same juror commenting about his background. When someone has the mind of bias thinking, that person is entitled to only see the flaws of others and not the positive qualities one possess, yet can’t see their own mistakes committed noticed. As this continues, juror eight viewed this case and led some other jurors to think and dramatize the evidence they were given by the testimonies from what they saw. Little by little, the jurors start to change their opinion about the case of the young man and have been supporting juror eight by the facts he has stated in the room, yet juror three still wouldn’t reason correctly and thought the guy should convicted of the
Why should the color of someone’s skin effect a crime that was committed? In the vignette of “Twelve Angry Men” the author, Reginald Rose addresses racism. According to act three on page 27 the Jurors are coming to a vote on whether or not the boy was guilty or not. The boy claimed that he wasn’t guilty of committing a premeditated murder but Juror number ten said otherwise. The evidence that is shown to prove this point is when all the jurors are all at the table and they all go to the window and turn their backs towards juror number ten, specifically juror numbers three and four.
Fallacies in 12 Angry Men 12 Angry Men- a 1957 film, rather a courtroom drama, is full of emotions represented in arguments and intellectual brainstorming. Directed by Sidney Lumet, the film is an example of intellectual art. The film is based the story of a 18-year old slum boy who was on trial for killing his father by stabbing him. The judges, after seeing all the evidences and witnesses, actually leave the decision to the jury, to decide whether the boy was guilty or not. Also, if the jury decides that the boy is guilty, he would have to face the electric chair.
Have you ever been in a situation where you and a group of individuals are trying to make a difficult decision? A decision that could alter another person 's life. Well for the jurors in “Twelve Angry Men” ,by Reginald Rose, they had to do exactly that. All twelve members of the jury had to decide whether a young man would be guilty of manslaughter. All of them were forced to stay in the room until they all agreed on a decision.
It was stated that Reginald Rose the author of 12 Angry Men was known for writing about social and political issues during the year of him writing the 12 Angry Men. There was lots of racial injustice. People of color were being convicted of crimes they did not commit. They were being killed for the color of their skin. The court rooms were filled with all white jurors.
‘Twelve Angry Men’ written by Reginald Rose, is based on the story of a jury who have to come together to determine the fate of a young boy accused to have murdered his own father. Initially, eleven of the jurors vote not guilty with one of the juror being uncertain of the evidence put before them. As the men argue over the different pieces of evidence, the insanity begins to make sense and the decision becomes clearer as they vote several other times. Rose creates drama and tension in the jury room, clearly exploring through the many issues of prejudice, integrity and compassion, in gaining true justice towards the accused victim. These aspects have been revealed through three character who are Juror 10, Juror 8 and Juror 3.
It was a hot, sweltering summer day that involved a gruesome murder case. Twelve men were placed as jurors regarding a young man being accused of stabbing his father to death. During preliminary tally, eleven tired men voted guilty, while one lone man voted not guilty. That person was Juror #8. A simple man nearing middle age with full dark hair, dark mystic eyes, and a well leveled tone, who carried himself firmly.