If you were a juror in a murder case, would you undoubtedly conjecture that the arraign person is guilty? Playwright Reginald Rose published Twelve Angry Men in 1955. This play took place during a hot summer day in a jury room of a New York Court of Law in 1957. In act I of Twelve Angry Men, this about a nineteen-year-old man that was accused of murdering his father by a numerous amount of people. All things considered, if the verdict came back guilty the nineteen-year-old man would be sentenced to death by the electric chair.
In 1957 there was a film entitled “12 Angry Men,’’ and it was a film about a son who supposedly, killed his father and the 12 men who are the jurors for the court case. Throughout the film, there is a lot of arguing and bickering but with the arguing, watchers learn more and more about all the characters and their views and beliefs and how they influence their votes. In the 1957 film, viewers learn the most about how jurors votes are shifted mostly by their, past experiences, unfamiliar knowledge, and their open minds. One of the most influential traits to change the jurors views is their past experiences with “slum boys.’’(Film) The jurors who had been influenced by the trait were jurors all but juror eight. As the movie went on, all the jurors had explained why they had a bad view on children from the slums.
“Scout, I’m beginning to understand something. I think I’m beginning to understand why Boo Radley’s stayed shut up in the house all this time…” (227). Prejudice and discrimination are major issues that are present in the town of Maycomb; Scout and her brother Jem are young children who learn about the disturbing existence of the bigotry that they were previously unaware of in their familiar southern hometown throughout the trial of Tom Robinson, an innocent African American who is accused of rape by a white woman. To Kill a Mockingbird introduces a world that harbors prejudice against some of its very citizens and describes how discrimination was a major flaw in society and still is a flaw present day society. The author, Harper Lee develops
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.
People like juror number 8 , but also people like juror number 3, 4 and 10 who firmly say that he is guilty. Juror number 10 is not able to look at the situation objectively. This film very slowly reveals to us that he is racist. Early on he drops small and subtle remarks that
One day a mob stands in front of the narrator’s father, Atticus, and threatens him that they will kill his defendant. Atticus, a white attorney, spends his night in front Tom Robinson’s cell, who is really scared. Atticus faces the mob which comes and tries to lynch the accused rapist. They feel the need to defend their white superiority with violence and obtain a judgement even before the legal trial. It was a widespread practice to lynch accused blacks in the South even before a fair trial.
In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose twelve jurors in a court have to try to decide If a boy is guilty or innocent in the charge of murdering his father. With this we get to see many personalities within all the jurors making them all extermenley different voices being heard the the courtroom. For this assignment we created shapes showing off the personalonalities for three jurors, the twelfth, eighth and third jurors as they all have they different and distinguishable personalities. While juror eight is logical and tries to examine all the evidence thoroughly, juror three is brash and goes against his personal pregidef.nces, strongly sharing all of them to the other jurors. Juror twelve was the one I had watched in the movie, he didn 't
This symbolizes equality. In the courtroom, as Bob Ewell testifies that he saw Tom raping his daughter, the townspeople erupt. This angers the judge, who “hammered fully five minutes” (231) to get them to quiet down. By using his gavel, he is really asking for the townspeople in the courtroom to calm down and see the black man as an equal. However, in the end, the people in the jury cannot see this and Tom is found guilty simply because of his skin color.
Twelve Angry Men “In a criminal trial, they are tasked with the responsibility of deciding based on the facts of the case, whether a person is guilty or not guilty of the offence for which he/she has been charged. The jury must reach its verdict by considering only the evidence introduced in court and the directions of the judge.” 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
In his play Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose brings us back in time to 1957, to a jury room of a New York Court of Law where one man, Juror #8, confronts the rest of the jury to look at a homicide case without prejudice, and ultimately convinces Juror #2, a very soft-spoken man who at first had little say in the deliberation. Throughout the play, many of the jurors give convincing arguments that make one think about whether the boy is “guilty” or “not guilty.” Ultimately, one is convinced by ethos, logos, and pathos. We can see ethos, logos, and pathos having an effect on Juror #2 as he begins as a humble man and changes into someone brave at the end. Although all three modes play a part in convincing Juror #2, pathos was the most influential