All things considered, if the verdict came back guilty the nineteen-year-old man would be sentenced to death by the electric chair. Without delay, the jurors came to their decision and eleven of the twelve jurors voted guilty, but to be able to prosecute the nineteen-year-old man, the jurors needed to be concordant with each other. Nevertheless, the jurors went to a discrete room to discuss whether the nineteen-year-old man was guilty or not. In act II of Twelve Angry Men, Juror #8 discussed with the rest of the jurors as to why he believed that the man was not guilty in his eyes. With the more corroboration that Juror #8 gave, the more jurors began to believe that the man might not be guilty but instead innocent.
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.
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
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.
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.
“The Tell Tale Heart” is a perfect example of what a 1st Degree Murder conviction requires, Premeditation and Intent to Kill. In Gregg vs. Georgia 1976, The Court concludes that the 8th Amendment allowed Capital Punishment. Capital Punishment was to be used in the most serious of cases with aggravating evidence and for serious offenders. The murderer in “The Tell Tale Heart” had deliberately strangled an elderly man and went on to dismember and conceal the old man 's corpse. This man is not mad, only dead in the heart.
It showcases how the jury commences deliberating the case and are to pronounce a verdict of not guilty is any reasonable doubt exists and where the jurors already believe that the boy is anything but innocent. The main protagonist rises to the occasion and believes otherwise and then through a series of arguments and circumstantial evidence, in consensus with the rest proclaims a judgement of “not guilty”. It depicts the intensity and complexity that exists while delivering a verdict in a criminal case by the jury behind closed doors, even though many others sitting in the room may think contrary to the judgment upheld by
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
Milam, were freed due to reasonable doubt in the jury according to the legal records, but the jurors and community knew that the two men would be found innocent no matter how much evidence was brought against them. About a year later, however, Look magazine published an interview of the accused recounting what happened the night of Emmett’s death. In this article the murder was confessed to, and almost revelled in by the
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