The jury had a murder case that dealt with a nineteen-year-old man that was accused of murdering his father from several people. If the man was found guilty of the crime, then he would be sentenced to death. Each one of the jurors came to their own decision deciding whether or not the defendant was guilty of the crime or not. The rising action in the play is that only Juror #8 found the defendant innocent and all the other jurors found him guilty of the crime. In order for the jury to make a decision, they needed a unanimous vote.
In these two critically-acclaimed movies, government ignorance is explored in distinct ways. In 12 Angry Men, a jury of 12 men is sent to determine the fate of an 18-year-old slum-raised Latino boy accused of stabbing his father to death. A guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. In Beasts of the Southern Wild we are taken on an adventure alongside Hushpuppy, an African-American six-year old, who lives on a poverty-stricken island called the Bathtub and whose father’s tough love prepares her for a harsh world. As completely opposite as these two perspectives seem, each represents opposing sides of social injustice and ultimately deliver similar messages.
Why should the color of someone’s skin effect a crime that was committed? In the vignette of “Twelve Angry Men” the author, Reginald Rose addresses racism. According to act three on page 27 the Jurors are coming to a vote on whether or not the boy was guilty or not. The boy claimed that he wasn’t guilty of committing a premeditated murder
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. Nothing else. He’s different than the other jurors.
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.
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.
The play 12 Angry Men is about a jury of twelve men that are given the task of deciding the fate, guilty or not guilty, of a young boy accused of murdering his father. The theme of standing up against the majority is very prevalent in this story because of the decisions some of the jurors make throughout the play. Juror 8 makes the decision to vote not guilty, he is the one and only juror in this play that decides to vote not guilty for the boy in the beginning. The other eleven jurors decide to vote guilty because of the evidence that they have been presented with. The act of Juror 8 standing against the majority of the other jurors about the case, voting not guilty, allows the jurors to thoroughly dissect the case, understanding it fully and thoughtfully before making their decision of guilty or not guilty.
In 12 Angry Men, a play written by Reginald Rose in 1955, the author asserts that full self confidence is needed in order to make decisions. Rose uses the courtroom setting to convey this by putting the 12 jurors is a situation where if they vote guilty, the person faces the death penalty, if the jurors, such as juror #8, don’t have full confidence in the guilty decision, they need to speak up as he does because if they don't, they could wrongly end a man's life. Rose wants to stress the importance of your decisions in order to demonstrate the massive effects they can have on someone's life. Rose is writing this for the American public, to inform them that it's necessary to question the popular judgements if you don't fully agree with them
Mobashshir Arshad Ansari DM 16230 The movie “12 Angry Men” is a court drama based movie. The entire film takes place within a small New York City jury room, on "the hottest day of the year," as 12 men debate the fate of a young defendant charged with murdering his father. Most courtroom movies feel it necessary to end with a clear-cut verdict. But "12 Angry Men" never states whether the defendant is innocent or guilty if innocent then who is guilty.
In The movie 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose he uses interesting techniques to show what the behind the scenes view of a juror room looks like. The 12 jurors are determining whether or not an accused inner-city teen is guilty or not-guilty for the death of his father. The reader can figure out the true meaning of the character’s by using shapes to analyze them and at the same time the reader may be able to dig deeper then text to figure out who these characters really are. The characters #5,#7, and #8 are the same, but different in many ways.
Results from the trial lead many to believe justice wasn’t served. Defensive attorney John Adams used tactics to create confusion in the minds of the jurors so they could not be certain what actually took place. This proved to be very effective. Adam noted the crowd had been harassing the soldiers and also attacked them. There was no reliable evidence to back this up and it was generally believed, even if Preston was found guilty, he would be pardoned anyway.
It was a hot, sweltering summer day that involved a gruesome murder case. Twelve men were placed as jurors regarding a young man being accused of stabbing his father to death. During preliminary tally, eleven tired men voted guilty, while one lone man voted not guilty. That person was Juror #8. A simple man nearing middle age with full dark hair, dark mystic eyes, and a well leveled tone, who carried himself firmly.
It’s the hottest day of the year in New York City, and 12 men, who were put on a jury, are locked into a room to discuss the case of an accused 18 year old murderer. In the opening scene, the judge states that is it a first degree murder and if found guilty the teenager will receive the death penalty. The 18 year old is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade. The 12 jurors must decide if there is enough evidence to convict the teen of murder. When the initial vote is taken is it 11-1.
In the novel, And Then There Were None, Lawrence “Justice” Wargrave, a judge, a suspect of murder, is put on trial for the murder of Edward Seton. Wargrave grew up knowing that he wanted to do something for Justice. So, now he is a judge, sending people to jail for Justice and for the greater good of society. Getting the bad guys off the streets. Now, the tides have turned and he is put on trial for convincing the jury in the Edward Seton case.
American history is a sad and bloody history with many bumps that have created it into the superpower it is today. This hardship from our history played a crucial part in many books and especially To Kill A Mockingbird. Harper Lee created a writing masterpiece by using real life events as well as using real life corrupted laws. Connections like the Jim Crow laws, the mob mentality, and issues of racism that were taking place in that time.