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. His forceful personality is used to getting its own way and being in …show more content…
This man may be a bit timid in part due to his old age, but his quiet nature also makes him insightful, noticing very specific details about witnesses that many others on the jury missed. He seems to come off as the most respectable and well mannered man out of the twelve. He 's the first to change his vote to not guilty, mostly to give Juror 8 a chance to make his case and out of respect for his motives in gambling for support. In talking about the older man that gave testimony it 's almost as though he 's talking about himself, revealing that he wants to be useful and to do something valuable, even if it 's just this once as a juror. As you may have noticed out of all the twelve men in the movie, each and everyone of them has unique personalities, that all at one point throughout the trial, played a very effective role in deciding this boy 's fate. Even if they all didn’t agree on certain things, they were all able to have some contribution on coming together to decide that the boy is not guilty. This story is a great example of how completely different people can work together to eventually decide on something no matter how big are small
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
As the play went on, Juror Eight started proving how the boy was innocent. In the end Juror Eight changed all the other juror’s minds, except for Juror Three’s. Juror Three ended up changing his vote, not because they changed his mind but because he gave into peer pressure. He still had his prejudice influenced decision, he only gave in because he didn't want it to be a hung jury. Another example, from the same play, is Juror Eight.
Drama, often defined as the visual form of literature, can be seen as a mix of both realistic and unrealistic elements. Through drama, playwrights can develop plays that reflect our society and societal issues, consolidating different aspects of the real world to indirectly communicate with the audience. Reginald Rose's 1954 play, the 'Twelve Angry Men' is an excellent example of this, with recurring themes of racial bias, discrimination and social inequality woven deep into the plot, allowing him to convey his messages accurately and indirectly to the reader. The 12 conflicting titular characters each represent different ideologies and perspectives, which can greatly reflect how they react towards the situation faced.
The play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose the jury decides whether or not the boy is guilty of murder in the first degree. Juror Eight votes not guilty because, he needs more evidence. Juror Eight is compassionate, when all the other jurors voted the boy guilty. He tenderhearted proclaims that voting him guilty isn’t easy he implies, “Look this kids been kicked around his all his life.” Juror Eight doesn't want to just send the boy off to prison without further investigation.
Juror3 I think is “devil’s advocacy” in this film. He had a tight relationship with his son and he is aggressive in this meeting so he always held different opinion with others. Tight relationship between he and his son I think is his motivation. 13.
While all of the other men have changed their vote to a not guilty verdict, the third jurors remains with his original belief. Even in the very end of the play, he acts hostile against the others trying to change his mind, in saying “Do you think I’m an idiot or something?” (Rose 72). One juror that seems almost impervious to argumentative fallacies and peer pressure is Juror 8. Juror almost displays the ideal juror, and the rest tend to mimic the flaws of the system.
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.
Twelve Angry Men is in many ways a love letter to the American legal justice system. We find here eleven men, swayed to conclusions by prejudices, past experience, and short-sightedness, challenged by one man who holds himself and his peers to a higher standard of justice, demanding that this marginalized member of society be given his due process. We see the jurors struggle between the two, seemingly conflicting, purposes of a jury, to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. It proves, however, that the logic of the American trial-by-jury system does work.
One piece of evidence that proves the boy’s innocence is the uncommon kind of knife. The testimony said that it was one of a kind knife, while juror number eight brought the exact same one in a local pawn shop proving that the knife wasn’t that rare. In addition to the not uncommon knife, we also have
The justice system that relies on twelve individuals reaching a life-or-death decision has many complications and dangers. The play Twelve Angry Men, by Reiginald Rose, illustrates the dangers of a justice system that relies on twelve people reaching a life-or-death decision because people are biased, they think of a jury system as an inconvenience, and many people aren’t as intelligent as others. The first reason why Reiginald illustrates dangers is because people can be biased or they can stereotype the defendant. The Jurors in Twelve Angry Men relate to this because a few of them were biased and several of them stereotyped the defendant for being from the slums. The defendant in this play was a 19 year old kid from the slums.
Although 3 does change his mind in the end, he is the last to change so he is the leader for the guilty side. In the end, the reader can look at figure 1. and take away the fact that juror 8 is the main character, and that jurors 3 and 8 causes the main conflict in the
Our life experiences make our present, our values, our way of behaving and thinking. Although no one is perfect, we are prone to develop prejudice against those who are totally different from us. For most of the time, prejudice only affects us personally. But if an individual is given a power to be responsible for another person’s live or death, prejudice can turn into a deadly weapon.
Twelve Angry Men, written by the American playwright Reginald Rose, is a play depicting the workings of the American judicial system in 1957 that aid in forming the speculations of the murder case. In addition, it exemplifies the communal values in the society, the different etiquettes and affairs in America during the 1950’s. In the play, Rose displays a biased jury consisting of twelve men from distinct backgrounds that have contrasting views, opinions and reasons are entrusted with announcing a boy’s innocence or guilt over a patricide. Twelve Angry Men, is a celebration of justice and likewise a warning about the fragility of justice and the strengths of complacency, prejudice, and absence of civic responsibility that would undermine it. Several members of the jury demonstrate that they are practically unequipped for considering the murder case reasonably and
The results of these informal practices only proved that the accused wasn't guilty because the arguments were not valid enough to incriminate him. Leadership did emerge differently from a small group setting because a designated leader should not let a group member overtake his position. So Juror #8 as a initiator should have never tried to take the position of Juror #1. But it was needed for him to do that so that the group could reach into a correct decision. If Juror #8 wouldn't have voiced his opinion then maybe this innocent young men could have been acquitted.
The movie “Twelve Angry Men” illustrates lots of social psychology theories. This stretched and attractive film, characterize a group of jurors who have to decide the innocence or guiltiness of an accused murder. They are simply deliberating the destiny of a Puerto Rican teenaged boy accused of murdering his father. Initially, as the film begins, except the juror Davis (Henry Fonda), all other jurors vote guilty. Progressively, the jurors begin trying to compromise on a point that everybody agree because the decision of the jury has to be unanimous.