Immaturity In 12 Angry Men

538 Words3 Pages
12 Angry Men was an act to show how irresponsible people were back in the days. It showed the immaturity of the judges. The fact that they didn’t care about what happened with the client, made them seem like that wasn’t the right job for them. There was few judges who would follow their critique like juror 8 his job was to analyze and go deeper into the case and that’s what facinated me the most. The juror had arguments through out the act. Because of the fact of his views in the client. If it was true that the teenager murder his father, it was the jurors job to prove it. Juror 8 on the act question other jurors it didn’t make sense to just let a person die if he wasn’t fully guilty. The witnesses weren’t really a help an old lady who wore glasses said that she saw the guy stabbed his own dad. That sounds kind of fishy because of the fact it was night and we can’t put our glasses on that fast to see all that action. Plus the lady was old and she couldn’t stand right away and I’m pretty sure it would be hard for the lady to see far. The other isssue was that the way wound was done. The weapon that was used wasn’t sharp enough. The height of each individual was a problem as well the judge infer that the guy was to short to stabbed his father. Which means he was thinking more ahead.…show more content…
The fact that one juror stood alone at one point made him looked dumb because he just wanted the case to be over with and he knew he wasn’t doing his job right. All he wanted was the client to have his death penalty which wasn’t right. He wasn’t following or doing his job right. The moral was that you can’t judge someone you have to prove that their guilty or else you can’t do anything about it. Juror 8 knew that very well so he did everything right. The only problem was that he argued with one of the jurors and they shouldn’t be arguing in the court
Open Document