he story of the movie ’12 Angry Men’ is grounded on the trail of eighteen years old boy who was accused of killing his abusive father stabbing to death. Twelve jury have been chosen to decide the fate of the boy. If the jury finds him guilty then he will be sentenced to death, it was a grave responsibility for them since it was a matter of life and death. The face of the convict was shown for the first and last time while the jury was retiring from the room, it was a gloomy face whose life is at the hands of the decision of the jury. As the jury entered into the jury room, the air inside the room was hot, which can also be symbolic to the intensity of the case.
Story Line 12 men meet at a Jury Room after a trial to decide if a 16 year old man is guilty of killing his father if the man is found guilty the sentence is Death Penalty, this was supposed to be an easy decision, but turn around when one of the members of the Jury was not agree and bought in question the witnesses and what they saw or heard versus what they should. The majority of the members were against Jury number 8, but when he was presenting more remarkable and questionable proves to the case one by one started changing their mind. At the end all the members where agree that was not enough proves to convict this young man to death. Overview of the Film Themes: Justice 12 men are responsible to decide if a young man is guilty of killing
But when it comes to reaching a verdict in the case, #4 is completely unsympathetic, saying, the boy's entire story was flimsy and he also claimed that he was at the movies. He couldn't even remember what pictures he saw and that it was little ridiculous. While he might seem cold and harsh, Juror #4 is actually not all that bad. For one thing, he's totally willing to be swayed by evidence. He tosses aside some of the early arguments about the defendant's innocence not because he's prejudiced, but because he doesn't believe
The jurors in Twelve Angry Men also had to deal with this problem. Juror number 3 had a son who have not talked to in years because he was so tough on him when he was younger. This juror had no trouble believing that the boy killed his father because he thinks his son could have killed him. Juror number 11 was an immigrant who believed in the American Justice system with all his heart. He wanted to make sure that the boy had a fair trial because he believed that was the American way, his experiences in his own country were very unfair to people of different races, religions and
In the book 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose’s the author tells a story of 12 men who have to determine the verdict of a young man who is on trial for 1st degree murder. The 12 men discuss the case to find out that many of them are convicting this kid from emotion and prejudice against the boy who is on trial. Analyzing prejudice on a larger scale we can understand that it is not always about race, Juror number three is prejudice against the defendant because of his age. Twelve angry men has multiple ways of showing us how prejudice can affect our judgment and how it is hard to change someone's mind who is only open to their own opinions, the jury is able to get passed their prejudice only by being confronted by the facts . And by making the Jurors who vote
Progressively, the jurors begin trying to compromise on a point that everybody agree because the decision of the jury has to be unanimous. Eventually, the votes of the eleven jurors are converted by convincing speech and peer pressure. Therefore, they made a not-guilty decision. Twelve Angry Men emphasize social psychology theories in the fields of conformity, eye-witness testimony, schemas and heuristics, attitude change (persuation and social influence) and group process (polarization).
The jurors also argued that if the boy went back to go get the knife, he must be really motivated to hide the evidences of the crime even though there is a big chance of him getting caught. Many jurors have racial bias and a lot of stereotypes about kids that grew up in the slums and also who belong to certain racial groups/ethnicity. This stereotypes and racial slurs led to biased interpretations of the evidence. The jurors also led to conformation bias. For example, a lot of jurors expected that the boy was guilty.
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.
Davis, Juror Eight, is the main character, protagonist, and was responsible for the boy's life in this film. He is an architect who was the first to vote "not guilty". Voting that way takes a lot of courage, because all the men just want to get out of there and not
These aspects have been revealed through three character who are Juror 10, Juror 8 and Juror 3. Juror Ten announces his intentions very early in the play. He speaks loudly and forcefully from the beginning, clearly showing his racism and prejudice towards the boy. Juror 10 quickly votes guilty and asserts that the defendant cannot be believed because “they’re born liars”. Additionally, he claims that the “kids who crawl outa those places are real trash.” With selfish attitudes like this, it was unlikely that Juror 10 would be interested in the truth behind the evidence and the case itself.