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.
If you were a juror in a murder case, would you undoubtedly conjecture that the arraign person is guilty? Playwright Reginald Rose published Twelve Angry Men in 1955. This play took place during a hot summer day in a jury room of a New York Court of Law in 1957. In act I of Twelve Angry Men, this about a nineteen-year-old man that was accused of murdering his father by a numerous amount of people. All things considered, if the verdict came back guilty the nineteen-year-old man would be sentenced to death by the electric chair.
Though juror 3 has been adamant on the guilt of the young boy it is safe to say that this case meant more to him because the relationship with his son is similar to the relationship between the boy and the father. Since his personal vendetta causes him to forcefully accuse the boy of murder it leaves the jury 11-1 in favor of not guilty. Since carefully reviewing the movie it becomes very prevalent that there has not been enough substantial evidence to convict the boy of murder. Furthermore, with the usage of group think all of the men, accept juror 3 are able to put their pride aside and vote what they truly believe the verdict should be, which is not guilty. Though, one of the more pragmatic points in the film happens after juror 3 becomes infuriated after realizing that all of the men are voting not guilty.
Twelve Angry Men “In a criminal trial, they are tasked with the responsibility of deciding based on the facts of the case, whether a person is guilty or not guilty of the offence for which he/she has been charged. The jury must reach its verdict by considering only the evidence introduced in court and the directions of the judge.” The movie twelve angry men set the scene of a typical murder trial of a young man who supposedly murdered his father. Jurors are selected from various backgrounds, cultures and professions. Twelve angry men showed the diversity of people ranging from bankers, poker player, parent and those raised in the not so sophisticated lifestyle of the ghettos. Those men were bestowed the opportunity to deliberate on the fate
Prejudice in this book is present and as a jury in the trial, it can bad for the accused in many ways depending on what the crime was committed. A man was murdered and the son of that man is the only one known to be with him that night yet claims to have been elsewhere. The jurors are the only ones to determine this guy’s future to be proven innocent, or falsely accused guilty by the preconceived notion of the juries. Only one jury stood out only because he knew the right for a fair trial is to be upon this man and as for everyone, the only one who hasn’t judged the boy in any way. Juror number three thought he was a slum as if any other slum would be, a criminal living trashy and even think they’re stupid.
In his play Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose brings us back in time to 1957, to a jury room of a New York Court of Law where one man, Juror #8, confronts the rest of the jury to look at a homicide case without prejudice, and ultimately convinces Juror #2, a very soft-spoken man who at first had little say in the deliberation. Throughout the play, many of the jurors give convincing arguments that make one think about whether the boy is “guilty” or “not guilty.” Ultimately, one is convinced by ethos, logos, and pathos. We can see ethos, logos, and pathos having an effect on Juror #2 as he begins as a humble man and changes into someone brave at the end. Although all three modes play a part in convincing Juror #2, pathos was the most influential
Abstract 12 Angry Men is an American drama film produced in the year 1957. This film was adapted from the teleplay 12 Angry Men which was named by Reginald Rose, written and co-produced by Rose himself and directed by Sidney Lumet. This classic, mind gripping and penetrating black and white film tells the story of a diverse group of twelve jurors, all male, middle aged and of middle class status, who were entrusted with the power of determining the fate of an uneducated teenage Puerto Rican boy who was accused of murdering his father with a switchblade and was facing the possibility of the electric chair. The film also depicts a jury attempting to render a unanimous verdict in the murder trial. The process whereby the decision is reached illustrates a situation where a minority transforms the opinion of a majority by exerting persuasive tactics and demonstrating effective leadership.
In what seemed like solid, compelling evidence at first, turned out to be faulty after deep analysis and logical thought. By exposing the audience to the logical discoveries made by the jury, 12 Angry Men truly displayed a sense of realism throughout the film. Perhaps the most realistic aspect of the film is best described by critic Mark Nunez, where: Many critics advance the rational argument that the power of a juror to decide one way or another for no apparent reason cannot possibly work to achieve justice. However, the film also exposes us to those jurors in the room who openly express their thoughts, ideas, and feelings about the case. This juxtaposition of characters in the jury room is ultimately consistent with the fact that the room should reflect the diverse community in which we live.
In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose twelve jurors in a court have to try to decide If a boy is guilty or innocent in the charge of murdering his father. With this we get to see many personalities within all the jurors making them all extermenley different voices being heard the the courtroom. For this assignment we created shapes showing off the personalonalities for three jurors, the twelfth, eighth and third jurors as they all have they different and distinguishable personalities. While juror eight is logical and tries to examine all the evidence thoroughly, juror three is brash and goes against his personal pregidef.nces, strongly sharing all of them to the other jurors. Juror twelve was the one I had watched in the movie, he didn 't
However you decide your verdict must be unanimous. (Twelve Angry Men 02:03) Twelve men sit in deliberation room in New York City to decide a verdict of an eighteen-year-old boys trial. Eleven men let their biases get in the way of justice; one man is not sure but wants to discuss the case. In the 1957 MGM film Twelve Angry Men, the jurors reveal their prejudice through their attitudes, actions, and beliefs. Although eleven of the jurors were angry, the attitude of Juror Eight