“When you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty” quoted by a man whose name is Norm Crosby. People who get called in for jury duty who are biased or unfair on the case have a valid reasoning to be dismissed from sitting in on a jury duty. Although some people don’t always take advantage of this opportunity, they are stuck in attending the jury duty and is unfair because they are biased to the situation. This ties into the short play called “Twelve Angry Men” written by Reginald Rose, because there were jurors who sat in on the case who were biased to the setting and continued to make an appearance at the jury duty. “Twelve Angry Men”, Rose demonstrates the danger
In the play 12 Angry Men the 8th juror has a positive impact by standing up for what he believes in. The eighth juror voted not guilty because he couldn't sentence a boy to death without deliberating long and hard. As The eighth juror said on pg. 13 “ It's not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die within talking about it first.” The boy he refers to is 16 years old and the eighth juror couldn't let a boy who is technically a minor die, he feels that it is his civic duty to talk about it.
In the 1950’s the American court primarily depended on evidence and witnesses to prove someone guilty in any case. Being accused of something is a feeling that no one would want to experience. “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a play in which twelve jurors try to interpret a case that revolves around a 16-year-old boy who is accused of murdering his father. Throughout this whole play the jurors are responsible for deciding the destiny of the boy. Rose portrays the contrasting opinions of Juror Three and Juror Eight, who contradict on their perspectives of solicitude, justice, and humanity.
Arthur Radley should receive a guilty conviction of second degree murder, because not only is there medical evidence and key witnesses, but his past record has shown he is prone to recklessness. Although, Arthur Radley did a courageous act of bravery in trying to protect the children, there were other ways to prevent Mr. Ewell from hurting the minors. Mr Ewell’s ill intentions and previous malicious actions have shown he needed to punished but not without a trial and a jury. With both the physical proof and the testimonies it is quite obvious what happened and who committed the crime. Without searching for reasons Arthur Radley killed a man in cold blood and should receive a guilty conviction.
“You can’t judge a book by it’s cover” is a quote that literally everyone has heard since before kindergarten. It basically means that you can’t judge a person based on what they look like. In the show, 12 Angry Jurors, there are 12 Jurors deciding the fate of a 19-year-old guy who may or may not have stabbed his father. Will he live, or be killed? Each juror has their own opinion on if the guy killed his father.
Many people, if asked what they would prefer, would prefer to read the book instead of watching the movie. It could be because the movie will always leave some parts from the story out. It seems like directors of the movie always leave out parts from the book, only incorporating the important parts from the story. Some also say that they prefer to leave the descriptions of things in the book up to their imagination. Also, when you are reading the book, you get to read the main characters point of view on things.
During the Vietnam War, Tim has also seen some people having no morals and some people want revenge. Not all solider who fought in the Vietnam War from America is innocent. Correspondingly, not all deaths are innocent, and people die without doing wanton things: to Tim, the world is unfair. In Vietnam, Tim realizes how horrible can people get from hanging around with Azar. Azar is guilty, however, he is still a savage; he took Lavender’s adopted puppy and strapped it onto explosives.
When someone has committed a crime, they are put on trial and they go through the motions of the judicial system. In 12 Angry Men, Reginald Rose creates a play that displays the judicial system in its truest form. It tells the story of the jury, as they have to come to a unanimous verdict of whether the defendant is guilty, innocent, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, of murder. The main conflict that the jurors face in the play is whether to charge him as guilty or not. Through the conflict in the book, the flaws in the justice system are illustrated and reasonable doubt appears.
Twelve Angry Men At the beginning of the Twelve Angry Men play the jurors were about to end the case, the minor being convicted of second degree murder of his own father. The juror’s attitude towards the information given of the murder case was ignorant and created injustice within the play. It took a juror numerous explanations and back up information to amend the injustice to a fair case. Reginald Rose conveys the theme of injustice throughout with a static and a dynamic character that try to resolve the external conflicts with a persuasive tone in Twelve Angry Men. Reginald Rose’s static and dynamic characters in Twelve Angry Men, help give the readers a deep understanding of the injustice theme.
Harper Lee’s reenactment of the 1930 culture was completely accurate. She portrays an environment where blacks are completely disregarded as humans. Lee also shows how the time period permits for behavioral cruelty. For example during the trial, Dill is upset when Tom Robinson is convicted guilty. Scout comforts him saying not to worry, that Robinson is just a negro.
Edward or Jacob? In Twilight Bella is put in a situation where she has an internal conflict because she has to use her heart and choose either Edward or Jacob in order to find her happily ever after. The most important literary element is inter conflict because emotions affect your actions,and past problems affect your decision. In 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose the jurors show internal conflict when their emotions affect their actions.
Character Analysis of Juror #11 In the film 12 Angry Men, Juror #11 is seen as a man with a sense of justice, fairness, and logic. Even though he does not play a major role in the film, his character cannot be ignored. He played an essential role in the defense for the defendant’s innocence and promoted fairness during the jury’s debate on whether or not the defendant was guilty. Whenever he spoke during the debate, his comments and questions were not provocative like the others.
After reading Twelve Angry Men, many questions have been raised. One such question is why being in alone more beneficial than being in a group. This question has been raised many times in the book as well as many times in history. Being alone isolates a person from his or her peers but, many people have seen benefit to be alone to help do things such as voice their opinions or to help bring change. For instance, in Twelve Angry Men, we are introduced to twelve diverse jurors who are arguing about whether a boy had murdered his father.