The Hero of the Story in 'Twelve Angry Men'

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.

12 Angry men is about 12 jury members and a foreman who are trying to determine if a boy is innocent or guilty. The case is about a boy who allegedly killed his father. All of the Jurors thought the boy with guilty but one, which was number 8. He wanted to make sure that everyone knew all the evidence so, they would be sure before they send a boy to jail. Number 3 was very strongly convinced throughout the whole trial that the boy was guilty.

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

Juror eight held his ground and convince the men to look over all of the evidence. Juror eight brought out the files, acted out different situations and the murder scene. The men went back and forth for hours fighting about whether or not the boy was guilt of killing his father Slowly one by one the jurors changed their mind from guilty to not guilty. All but juror three changed their mind, he was the last one standing so the vote was 11-1.

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.

The movie ‘12 Angry Men’ deals with a jury of twelve men, responsible for coming to a verdict about the fate of an illiterate teenager who was brought up in the slums and could be punished severely if found guilty of murdering his father with a switchblade knife. They have to make a unanimous decision, either guilty or not guilty. They are quite literally caged up in a small, claustrophobic room on a rather hot day. Through the course of the film the inner miseries, opinions and struggles of the jurors are brought out. 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.

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

Whenever people inspect a piece of work and try and figure out what it means 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a play about 12 jurors deciding on a verdict for a boy who supposedly committed murder. There is a lot of opinions shared with everyone trying to have the correct verdict that they want and many people may think that this play is just about finding the correct outcome of the case, but it is actually about deeper meaning that Rose wanted the reader to learn. In the play 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the authorial intent is two different ideas to take away from the reading and they are, people change with the opinions of others and your background changes your perspective. The first idea that Rose intended for the readers to get is

He also made a red herring fallacy during the demonstration of old man witness. iii) Fallacy of begging the question was made by him immediately as he has his entry in the room, claiming that, “everyone knows that he is guilty”. iv) When asked to defend his statement, he repeats that everyone knows he is guilty, thus creating Circular reasoning fallacy. v) Attack on the person was also made by him while stating, “The kid 's a dangerous killer, you could see it... He stabbed his own father, four inches into the chest.

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. This very excitable juror is the last to change his vote, and while his stubbornness could be seen as being based more on emotions than facts, he starts off with his little notebook with facts of the case and tries to insist that he has no personal feelings on the matter.

Tell me, who are you going to trust more? The man on trial who is trying to avoid being put on the chair, and will lie or will do anything to save his life? Or the elderly who have no such reason or intent to lie to you? These two witnesses should be enough to persuade you that this man is guilty and that he murdered his

“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.

The fiber evidence presented in this case was so overwhelming and simply was the driving force leading to Wayne Williams conviction. I do not believe the prosecution would have been able to obtain the same results without it. The credibility of the FBI forensics investigators and their reputable crime lab made for excellent testimony concerning the fiber evidence at trail, which the defense was simply ill prepared to counter attack its merits (The Atlanta, n.d.). Other evidence was presented in this case, and much of this evidence while certainly impactful on the case and to members of the jury, this evidence alone without the fiber evidence would surely not have held up to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

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.

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.