The film, 12 angry men is about 12 members of the jury that is trying to solve a trial of a murder. There is a juror named, Henry Fonda. Throughout the argument the jurors were really biased. There were many attributions in the film. One of it is when Henry Fonda made the point when the boy got pushed around all his life and he was treated really poorly.
James A. Forbes once said, “When people rely on surface appearances and false racial stereotypes, rather than in-depth knowledge of others at the level of the heart, mind and spirit, their ability to assess and understand people accurately is compromised”(“James Forbes” n. pag. ). Tragically, many people rely on surface appearances to make judgements on others. These judgements and stereotypes can prejudice juries and common people against an innocent person in the justice system. Racial stereotypes present in society for the past hundred years affect who is presumed guilty of a crime regardless of evidence.
The American jury system is know throughout the country and with its reputation, it’s incorrect. Reginald Rose proved a great stand on the jury with his play, Twelve Angry Men, as this shows the flaws and adept qualities in the jury room. Throughout the play the jury is debating whether or not the defendant is guilty of murdering his father. The jury began at eleven guilty and one not guilty to at the very end all not guilty. The play shows all the possibilities that happen in a jury room.
"Don 't judge a book by its cover" is a famous saying that some of us heard it before and some of us experienced it. 12 jurors were experiencing this quote when they gathered to decide whether a young boy is guilty by killing his father or not. Juror 2 stated, "Well, anyway, I think he was guilty" (6). Juror 2 represent most of us, as sometimes we judge from what we hear and not from what we see. The 12 jurors are from various backgrounds and each one has a distinctive personality.
The people in charge may have argued that he was too involved and even though he never went through with the plots he deserved death. Since he had no protection from a jury or even his own input he was hung for just being involved. His name was attached to Booth’s and this made him a wanted man. This world is full of sin and corruption.
In Twelve Angry Men, the award winning three act drama written by Reginald Rose, each juror is told to reconsider a reasonable doubt in deciding the fate of a young man accused of murdering his own father. With little exception, each juror bring his own personal biases and preconceptions. However, in this rollercoaster of a drama, no other juror stands out as much as Juror Three. Though other jurors may occasionally admit a reasonable doubt, Juror Three is strictly motivated by his superiority complex, impatience, and personal grudges. Juror Three often believes his opinions matter more than others and only appreciates those who agree with him.
This shows that Steve already thinks of himself as a monster from what he had done. His mom believed that he was innocent, “It was [him] who wasn’t sure. It was [him] who lay on the cot wondering if [he] was fooling [himself]” (148). In order for someone to believe in you, you
12 Angry Men Essay The movie 12 Angry Men, is about a son who may have committed murder, killing his father, and 12 jurors have to either prove him innocent or guilty. There are jurors who are fixed on saying that the 19 year old boy is guilty of murdering his father, but there are other jurors who are saying he is innocent until they have proof to say that he is guilty. There are many instances when the jurors use fallacies, deductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning when they are trying to prove either that the boy is guilty or innocent.
The boy should deserve a careful discussion from jurors before face the result of the trial and he emphases that there were only two people who saw the whole process of the murder stabbing the boy’s dad Juror 8 questioned the weapon which claim to kill father, which is a normal switchblade that even juror 8 owns one himself Juror 8 told other jurors to revote, and if this time 11 jurors still think that the boy is guilty, then he will go with them and say that the boy is guilty too One person voted “Not Guilty” at the second
Although Casseti had been tried for his wrongdoings, he exploited his money and resources to avoid capture. The novel then shifts tone, with the detective and his partner starting to explore the clues to find the murderer. In the end, it is concluded that not one, but all thirteen suspects were associated in the murder. Despite knowing this, Poirot decides that Casseti had gotten what he deserves and hide the truth from the
Juror Eight states, “It’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first” (Rose 231). Juror Eight feels that fairness is essential in a trial with the death penalty on the line. The conviction of a person doesn’t depend on where they come from. In the beginning of act two in Twelve Angry Men, a second vote amongst the jury members who voted guilty the first time takes place.
Twelve Angry Men is a book about a kid who is on trial for murder of his father. A lot of evidence is brought forward, but most of the evidence is either circumstantial or does not add up with the witness testimony; therefore, the boy is innocent of all crimes charged against him. In the book, the two witnesses are the old man living downstairs and the woman living in the apartment on the other side of the el track. The old says that he heard the boy tell his father he is going to kill him, and then he heard the body hit the floor a second later.
During the trial, Dill is distraught by the way Mr. Gilmer, the prosecutor, speaks to Tom. Dill does not think anyone has the business to talk that way and “that old Mr. Gilmer doin’ him thataway, talking so hateful to him,” (265) made him sick. Mr. Gilmer interrogates questions like “Are you being impudent to me, boy,” (264) and acts toward Tom as if he is an untamed animal being trained and not a full-grown adult. Although Tom Robinson is treated harshly, Jem believes Atticus, the defendant lawyer and their father, has won the case because of the strong evidences presented and the fact that Tom is innocent (279). When the jury pronounce Tom guilty, Jem is exasperated and “his hands were white from gripping the balcony rail, and his shoulder jerked as if each ‘guilty’ was a separate stab between them,” (282).
Prejudice is the basis of the story “The Glass Roses” as the protagonist's dad and the rest of the logging camp has a predetermined notion of who Leka is. They have a prejudice towards Leka, they call him a Polack which is a derogatory name, it is also believed that he is gay. The story also deceives the reader, as it leads the reader astray trying to get us to believe in the prejudice. This can be seen in the tone used and especially when they say Leka cuddled up to Stephen, but it is quite the contrary as they share beds because they are in a logging camp. Due to this, the protagonist Stephen conflicts with his father about being his friend.
Character Analysis: Russ and Finley Russ and Finley’s relationship changes drastically through time. In the beginning of the story, their affiliation is tense, but as more life-changing events take place, they grow to be close friends. At the start of the story, Russ and Finley are forced friends by Coach. As Finley learns more and more about Russ’s strange persona, he grows more uncomfortable with being in his presence. During their first meeting, Russ explains to Finley how he is from outer space, and that his parents are going to pick him up.