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.
Interestingly enough, on the previous page Juror Ten is called out by Juror Four (60). The foreman also has some prejudice at the beginning of the case. He brings up another case that is similar to the one they are doing. He says the defendant accused of murder was let off and “eight years later they found out that he’d actually done it, anyway” (12). Prejudice clouds a person’s judgement and does not allow the individual to see all the facts.
16, the jury had men dressed in the Cunningham’s formal wear, hinting that the men whom tried to kill the defendant Tom the night before, was in the jury. This just further proves my thoughts, because those that hate you, and or dislike you, will judge you with false accusations. Like Atticus( Scouts father) had once said “the court is as equal as its jury”. Bias can cause many uproars in the court, but a lack of evidence can cause the case to become confusing. Generally evidence is what sets the difference between a wide open case and a closed off one.
Twelve Angry Men dates back to 1957 when twelve jurors are sitting in front of a murder case. The murder case regards a son being accused of stabbing his father to death. As the jury heads into their room to choose their verdict, the vote begins eleven to one. Only one man in that entire room could find the defendant not guilty. That one man, Mr. Davis, decided to be the difference.
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. It is about whether the jury has a reasonable doubt about his guilt.
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. While watching the movie Juror #5 had many strong moments.
The Attorney for the Defense opens the argument, “Was he or was he not justified in the slaughtering, … we do not dispute the slaughters themselves … [of] upwards of a hundred and twenty well-born young men, give or take a dozen (page 175, Penelopiad)” Atwood emphasizes the extreme number to draw attention to the staggering difference of what justice meant. It does not matter how gruesome the murders the men, “had been eating up his food without his permission, annoying his wife, and plotting to murder his son and usurp his throne. (page 175, Penelopiad)” These acts, argue the defense, justify a slaughter. Without any substantive statements, the judge agrees.
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.
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