Guilty In Twelve Angry Men
Guilty or not guilty? This is the key question during the murder trial of the young boy, who accused of fatally stabbing his father. Jurors in the movie of Twelve Angry Men have their own way of defining the term “reasonable doubt.” Therefore, in this paper, I will analyze this movie from using a decision model, dialogue, advocacy and inquiry, and three Cs.
The movie of twelve Angry Men uses the rational decision model, which is a series of steps that decision makers should consider if their goal is maximizing the quality of their outcomes with a thorough analysis of alternatives. (Organizational Behavior). In more detail, decision makers are used to come up with a fact-based decision, and develop a desired solution. In the movie, Juror #8
…show more content…
Juror #8 is the first man to vote not guilty in the case, and they should revise their approach because there is reasonable doubt of the boy, which is the beginning of the conflict. Based on their personal ghosts and anger, impatience and prejudice, the rest of jurors is engaged in affective conflict. For example, Juror #3 has a personal feeling about the behavior of kids, and he is certain that the boy is guilty based on his own prejudice. He says, “I’ve got a kid…when he was fifteen, he hit me in the face…I haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids! You work your heart out.” (12 Angry Men). Therefore, he is biased towards all teenagers who rebel and who act tough because he is projecting his son’s behavior on the boy. Furthermore, he generalizes his personal experience and lets this prejudice impact his thinking about the slum kid. Then, Juror #8 is the first juror to bring up reasonable doubt, and he has the ability to make the jurors to revise the evidence. This shows his consideration of facts. Also, he is good at knowing when to end deliberation. In the movie, he makes a proposition that the other jurors can vote, and if all of them vote “not guilty,” he would not stand alone and would go along with their guilty verdict. They agree to this and vote by secret ballot, so the deliberation can continue. Overall, the impact of the jurors’ decision making process is that if they want to improve the effective decision-making capabilities, and it needs to move from a process of advocacy to one inquiry, and it requires to these three critical factors as well. (HBR,
12 Angry Men Assessment: 12 Angry Men
755 Words | 4 PagesThough 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.
Character Differences In 12 Angry Men
1133 Words | 5 PagesThe Film 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, is a film written about the American jury system. In the film, as in any part in life, emotions are a tricky thing; This is especially true for the 3rd, 7th, and 8th jurors. One of the main themes in the film questions that of the emotions of the jurors. That question is: Is it possible to keep personal prejudice and emotions out of a trial? Is this even a good or bad thing?
Ethos, Pathos, Pathos And Logos In 12 Angry Men
1964 Words | 8 PagesWhat is worth our attention in this movie is how in the beginning they are trying to convince each other to vote guilty. 11 juror voted guilty and only one voted not guilty. Their judgments were based upon either their past personal experience which created their thoughts and behavior or upon facts. Juror 8 represents the conscience. He stood up for his inner feelings that the accused young boy is innocent.
Examples Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men
915 Words | 4 PagesThroughout the whole play, Juror Ten remains stubborn in his decision that the defendant is guilty. Yet, at the end the finally sees that there is reasonable doubt (62). 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.
Fallacies In 12 Angry Men
1404 Words | 6 PagesThe script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar
Jury Duty In 12 Angry Men
1207 Words | 5 PagesImagine getting that one dreaded letter in the mail, calling you to do the one thing you didn’t plan the week before your wedding, JURY DUTY. Reginald Rose wrote the play Twelve Angry Men for a television drama after he sat on a jury. The characters in this play are identified not by names but by numbers. Twelve men are confined to a deliberation room after the trial of a 19-year-old boy accused of stabbing and killing his father. Twelve Angry Men illustrates the many dangers of the jury system like, a biased jury, being left with questions, and feeling inconvenienced by jury duty.
Standing Up To The Majority In 12 Angry Men
1191 Words | 5 PagesThe 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.
12 Angry Men Rhetorical Analysis
1186 Words | 5 PagesMany of the jurors use logos, logic and reasoning, to lay out the evidence in a rational and concrete manner to convince him. An example is when 4th Juror lays out all of the evidence of the knife to convince 8th Juror with seven, linear, factual points. The reader and audience is meant to connect a sense of ethos, reliability or competence, to 8th Juror, as he is the only one who doesn’t, at first, seem to be clouded by ignorance, racism, disinterest, or any other characteristic that might cloud
Minority Influence In 12 Angry Men
1458 Words | 6 PagesThis movie is the best example of minority influence where in the earlier stage only one juror no. 8 says defendant is not guilty but in the end of the movie we see that he is able to influence all the jurors in a very logical manner which I am going to point out later so that all the jurors lastly says the defendant is not guilty. Minority influence is more likely to occur if the point of view of the minority is consistent, flexible, and appealing to the majority. The juror no. 8 doesn’t know defendant is guilty or not guilty but he has only doubt in his mind which he trying to clear during the entire film and with which he also able to clear the views of other
Juror Eight And Juror Three In John Steinbeck's 12 Angry Men
502 Words | 3 PagesIn the play 12 Angry Men, a murder case is being reviewed by a jury. This jury must decide if a kid who killed his father is guilty or not. Two jurors that were on opposing sides for most of the play was Juror Eight and Juror Three. The reason they were on opposing sides was because Juror Three believed the kid was guilty, while Juror Eight believed there was not enough evidence to convict him. Most of the jurors wanted to settle on having reasonable doubt, so another jury could be called in.
Reasonable Doubt In Twelve Angry Men
1011 Words | 5 PagesReasonable doubt proves that critical thinking is important when someone’s life is in someone else’s hands. “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, is a play about twelve jury members who must deliberate and decide the fate of a man who is accused of murdering his father. These twelve men must unanimously agree on whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty without reasonable doubt. Just like the jurors, the readers of this play have not witnessed the crime that took place before the trial started. Everyone, but the writer, is in the dark about who committed the crime.
Theme Of Emotion In 12 Angry Men
873 Words | 4 PagesThe emotion expressed by this juror created an atmosphere where his decision of the young boy’s life was dominated by his personal life rather than the murder case. Another example was when Juror number 5 changed his vote from guilty to not guilty because he could connect with the accused based on his
12 Angry Men Analysis
814 Words | 4 Pages‘Twelve Angry Men’ written by Reginald Rose, is based on the story of a jury who have to come together to determine the fate of a young boy accused to have murdered his own father. Initially, eleven of the jurors vote not guilty with one of the juror being uncertain of the evidence put before them. As the men argue over the different pieces of evidence, the insanity begins to make sense and the decision becomes clearer as they vote several other times. Rose creates drama and tension in the jury room, clearly exploring through the many issues of prejudice, integrity and compassion, in gaining true justice towards the accused victim. These aspects have been revealed through three character who are Juror 10, Juror 8 and Juror 3.
Examples Of Social Injustice In 12 Angry Men
803 Words | 4 PagesIn 12 Angry Men, the movie begins in a courtroom where the case is being discussed by the judge, who seems fairly uninterested. The jurors are then instructed to enter the jury room to begin their deliberations. They take a vote and all but juror 8 vote guilty. The jurors react violently to the dissenting vote but ultimately decide to go around the table in hope of convincing the 8th juror.
Social Psychology In The Movie Twelve Angry Men
721 Words | 3 PagesThe 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.
More about Guilty In Twelve Angry Men
12 Angry Men Assessment: 12 Angry Men
755 Words | 4 PagesCharacter Differences In 12 Angry Men
1133 Words | 5 PagesEthos, Pathos, Pathos And Logos In 12 Angry Men
1964 Words | 8 PagesExamples Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men
915 Words | 4 PagesFallacies In 12 Angry Men
1404 Words | 6 PagesJury Duty In 12 Angry Men
1207 Words | 5 PagesStanding Up To The Majority In 12 Angry Men
1191 Words | 5 Pages12 Angry Men Rhetorical Analysis
1186 Words | 5 PagesMinority Influence In 12 Angry Men
1458 Words | 6 PagesJuror Eight And Juror Three In John Steinbeck's 12 Angry Men
502 Words | 3 PagesReasonable Doubt In Twelve Angry Men
1011 Words | 5 PagesTheme Of Emotion In 12 Angry Men
873 Words | 4 Pages12 Angry Men Analysis
814 Words | 4 PagesExamples Of Social Injustice In 12 Angry Men
803 Words | 4 PagesSocial Psychology In The Movie Twelve Angry Men
721 Words | 3 Pages