Juror Eight’s passionate opinion about the defendant’s innocence helps persuade the other jurors to change their view on the matter. The defendant faces the death penalty if the jury votes him guilty for the first degree murder of his father. Immediately after the first half of the trial the jury converges in the conference room and takes their first vote. The main protagonist, Juror Eight, becomes clear when the results of the first vote are told to be eleven to one in favor of guilty. Juror Eight states, “It’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first” (Rose 231). Juror Eight feels that fairness is essential in a trial with the death penalty on the line. The conviction of a person doesn’t depend on where they come from. In the beginning of act two in Twelve Angry Men, a second vote amongst the jury members who voted guilty the first time takes place. Juror Nine votes not guilty because he admires Juror Eight for standing alone against the majority. Once the jurors start to discuss the case again Juror Seven questions who else would have the motive to kill this boy’s father. Juror Eight rebuts by saying, “As far as I know, we’re supposed to decide whether or not the boy on trial is guilty. We’re not concerned with anyone else’s motives here” (Rose 240). The main priority is to discuss the defendant’s innocence or guilt. By keeping the subject of discussion on the boy, Juror Eight, has an easier time convincing the rest of the jury that he is not guilty of the murder of his father. Juror Three, the main antagonist of Twelve Angry Men, doesn’t possess the perseverance that Juror Eight does. Juror Three doesn’t have a reasonable cause, which in turn weakens his argument. His bottled up emotions over his son become a problem later in the play when
People act upon what they think. Within “12 Angry Men”, all of the jurors have an opinion but some voice their more than others. One juror in particular, Juror Ten, voices his opinion about the boy in question. Repeatedly throughout the play, Juror Ten makes many thoughtless and hurtful comments about a certain kind of people. It is clear that Juror Ten’s uncompromising belief that the accused is guilty is because of his dislike for the boy’s race. His prejudice is clear when he says that “I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say” when speaking about the boy (16). Juror Ten’s prejudice causes him to disregard all of the facts that are presented to him by Juror Eight that can prove that the accused is not guilty. Juror 10 allows his prejudice to blind him of the truth. That is until he is called out by his fellow jurors. Throughout the whole play, Juror Ten remains stubborn in his decision that the defendant is guilty. Yet, at the end the finally sees that there is reasonable doubt (62). 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. It only allows them to
"Don 't judge a book by its cover" is a famous saying that some of us heard it before and some of us experienced it. 12 jurors were experiencing this quote when they gathered to decide whether a young boy is guilty by killing his father or not. Juror 2 stated, "Well, anyway, I think he was guilty" (6). Juror 2 represent most of us, as sometimes we judge from what we hear and not from what we see. The 12 jurors are from various backgrounds and each one has a distinctive personality. What is worth our attention in this movie is how in the beginning they are trying to convince each other to vote guilty. 11 juror voted guilty and only one voted not guilty. Their judgments were based upon either their past personal experience which created their thoughts and behavior or upon facts. Juror 8 represents the conscience. He stood up for his inner feelings that the accused young boy is innocent. Moreover, when everyone decided that the boy is guilty, he suggested that they should talk about it first. Furthermore, he said that he didn 't
Having a biased jury is just one way Twelve Angry Men shows the dangers of the jury system. Throughout the course of the play, many of the jurors assume, because
What if one day, twenty years from now you were chosen to discuss the fate of an eighteen year old boy. What would you do? Would you take your job and do it responsibly, or would you do it like some of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men and blow it off so you can finish early and leave. Even though there was a lot of controversy in that jury room, I noticed that Jurors 3,7, and 9 used their personalities, beliefs, and views of their responsibilities to bring the boy on trial to justice.
The Film 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, is a film written about the American jury system. In the film, as in any part in life, emotions are a tricky thing; This is especially true for the 3rd, 7th, and 8th jurors. One of the main themes in the film questions that of the emotions of the jurors. That question is: Is it possible to keep personal prejudice and emotions out of a trial? Is this even a good or bad thing? The film is all about this issue, and the question remains until the end of the play.
The play 12 Angry Men is about a jury of twelve men that are given the task of deciding the fate, guilty or not guilty, of a young boy accused of murdering his father. The theme of standing up against the majority is very prevalent in this story because of the decisions some of the jurors make throughout the play. Juror 8 makes the decision to vote not guilty, he is the one and only juror in this play that decides to vote not guilty for the boy in the beginning. The other eleven jurors decide to vote guilty because of the evidence that they have been presented with. The act of Juror 8 standing against the majority of the other jurors about the case, voting not guilty, allows the jurors to thoroughly dissect the case, understanding it fully and thoughtfully before making their decision of guilty or not guilty. Without this, the boy would have been given an unfair trial, and possibly had been prosecuted wrongly for a crime he didn’t do. The play wouldn’t have been able to continue without this, because the jurors would simply convict him as guilty and the boy would be put in jail. This play is a perfect example of how standing up to the majority is prevalent and
Twelve Angry Men is in many ways a love letter to the American legal justice system. We find here eleven men, swayed to conclusions by prejudices, past experience, and short-sightedness, challenged by one man who holds himself and his peers to a higher standard of justice, demanding that this marginalized member of society be given his due process. We see the jurors struggle between the two, seemingly conflicting, purposes of a jury, to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. It proves, however, that the logic of the American trial-by-jury system does work.
One can be easily mislead or persuade in a direction they do not agree with. However this is not the case with Juror 8 (Mr. Davis) in the film 12 Angry Men. In this film, twelve jurors try to identify whether or not the convicted eighteen year-old boy is guilty of murdering his father with a switchblade knife. If the puerto-rican boy is found guilty, he will be sent to the electric chair and sentenced to death. The movie begins in the humid jury room by taking a vote to see whether or not the boy is guilty: eleven guilties and one not guilty. At this point Mr. Davis (the only not guilty vote) could have easily switched his vote and sentenced the boy to death, however he did not. This is where some men get aggravated. This film shows the many ways the men try to persuade one another to change their vote through the characters of Mr. Davis (Juror 8), Juror 4, and Mr. McCardle (Juror 9).
In these two critically-acclaimed movies, government ignorance is explored in distinct ways. In 12 Angry Men, a jury of 12 men is sent to determine the fate of an 18-year-old slum-raised Latino boy accused of stabbing his father to death. A guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. In Beasts of the Southern Wild we are taken on an adventure alongside Hushpuppy, an African-American six-year old, who lives on a poverty-stricken island called the Bathtub and whose father’s tough love prepares her for a harsh world. As completely opposite as these two perspectives seem, each represents opposing sides of social injustice and ultimately deliver similar messages.
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.
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. The fallacies here are listed juror wise, all the fallacious traits observed in one juror at a time.
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. Similar
Throughout the play 12 Angry Men, jurors use reasonable doubt; previous knowledge or opinion of a topic, to influence the opinions of other jurors. Personal insight used by Juror eight, juror 9, Juror 5, Juror 8, and Juror 2 influence other jurors by changing their opinions and their reasoning behind that vote.
THE STORY UNFOLDS in front of us. The film places us as the audience into the shoes of the different jurors. Forcing us to make tough decisions of character and morality. We’re told very quickly and very efficiently that we’re dealing with a life-and-death situation. The jurors need to sentence a young man being accused of murder; all 12 jurors must come to a unanimous decision if they decide he’s guilty he’s be executed. If he’s declared innocent he walks free. The film essentially boils down into one question. What is the value of human life? The individual jurors each have their own biases which are formed from their past experiences. I want to begin by looking at juror member 8, our protagonist, the juror who from the start pleads that the dedendant is not