12 Angry Men Pride And Prejudice Analysis

When the identity of the horseman was revealed, my first reaction was surprised because I realize that Druse kills his own father and I understood why every kinds of war are destructive for family relationships. I realize also the significance of the duty for a soldier because if Druse didn’t kill his father, he can be considered as a criminal. 9. What do you think the author’s messages are concerning “duty”, “family” and “war”? in this short story, the author would like to denounce firstly the war and the conditions of leaving that known soldiers.

It is clear that Juror Ten’s uncompromising belief that the accused is guilty is because of his dislike for the boy’s race. His prejudice is clear when he says that “I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say” when speaking about the boy (16). Juror Ten’s prejudice causes him to disregard all of the facts that are presented to him by Juror Eight that can prove that the accused is not guilty. Juror 10 allows his prejudice to blind him of the truth.

Rotten kid! You work your heart out” (Twelve Angry Men). Every single other jury member has some reason as to why they voted, whether it be prejudice, gut feeling, based on the evidence, or just voting with the majority so they can all go home. Juror 3 is different. While everyone else contributes something about the case into their reason, Juror 3 simply chooses guilty based on events in his past.

The jurors took literally almost day just bickering and arguing over whether the boy was guilty or not. In act two the jurors were starting to change their mind about their vote on whether or not the boy was guilty or not. That is where they started to kind of come to an agreement. From the beginning of act one juror number eight was always on the boys side, and the other guys always questioned why he thought the boy was innocent. Juror number eight did not have a reason he said “ he’s nineteen years old”.

Let her die before his eyes,” Creon threatens Haimon to kill Antigone, “Here, this instant, with her bridegroom before her!” (Sophocles Scene 3, 137-39). During this quarrel, Haimon stays calm while on the other hand, Creon angrily disputes with him due to his arrogance. Additionally, Creon argues that an adolescence, like his son, does not have as much experience as an adult, like himself. Not aware of his power, Creon only sees this as discipline towards his son, as some parents would do. Without his excessive pride and arrogance, Haimon would have considered changing his mind.

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. Furthermore, when the picture of juror 3’s family falls out of his wallet and after he angrily rants to the men, he rips up the picture and begins to weep. When this is done it becomes obvious to the men how the difference in lifestyles affected all the entire day that they had endured. Furthermore, in seeing juror 3 release himself of his personal issues and the malaise he has towards his own family, the methods of groupthink are used and dismissed after each of the men decide their votes with their heart, and come to the conclusion presenting the young boy to be

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

Tom is called to testify for a falsely accused man that has been charged with murder, and Tom was at the site, unnoticed when it happened. With the true murderer in the courtroom, Tom "was badly scared" (Twain 214) and conflicted on whether or not to tell the whole story, knowing that Injun Joe would without a doubt, kill him. "Tom began-hesitatingly at first" (Twain 216) and decided to put the wellbeing and condition of the falsely accused man before his own safety and life. Understandably, Tom only hesitated because he was very nervous and traumatized by the whole situation, as any 11-year-old boy should

Jem and Scout are also bugged at school, for example Cecil Jacob’s makes fun of Atticus for defending Tom. “He announced in the school-yard the day before that Scout Finch’s daddy defended negros.” (85) Atticus and his children are affected by this for the majority of the story, and it is what sparks Bob Ewell’s revenge of trying to kill Jem and Scout. Prejudice is common with them, as people like Cecil Jacobs and Bob Ewell just assume Atticus choose to take the Tom Robinson case, however he is simply doing his job as a lawyer to defend them whether he thinks they are guilty or

The jury must reach its verdict by considering only the evidence introduced in court and the directions of the judge.” Functions and duties of a juror. 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 of this eighteen-year-old man.