Jury's Deliberations In 12 Angry Men

The movie ‘12 Angry Men’ deals with a jury of twelve men, responsible for coming to a verdict about the fate of an illiterate teenager who was brought up in the slums and could be punished severely if found guilty of murdering his father with a switchblade knife. They have to make a unanimous decision, either guilty or not guilty. They are quite literally caged up in a small, claustrophobic room on a rather hot day. Through the course of the film the inner miseries, opinions and struggles of the jurors are brought out. Their decisions are extremely biased initially either due to the background of the boy or what each of them holds as morally correct i.e. the sheer act in question of a boy killing his father is unthought-of no matter what the situation.

If he’s declared innocent he walks free. The film essentially boils down into one question. What is the value of human life? The individual jurors each have their own biases which are formed from their past experiences. I want to begin by looking at juror member 8, our protagonist, the juror who from the start pleads that the dedendant is not

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 Twelve Anger Men in my opinion is an extraordinary movie that depicts a diverse group of twelve men who are charged with jury duty. The twelve men differed in age, race, socio-economic status, and life experiences. The movie begins at the close of a murder trial conducted in a New York City courtroom, as a judge specifically gives the jury men instructions as they prepare to deliberate on the murder trial of a Puerto Rican youth accused of killing his father. Before the men deliberated the judge overly reminded them that a guilty verdict that means an automatic death sentence for the defendant, must be obtained without any reasonable doubt. Subsequently, the movie continues as the group of anger jury-men come face to face with their differences

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.

TWELVE ANGRY MEN In shape, "12 Angry Men" is a court dramatization. In object, it 's a brief training in those entries of the Constitution that guarantee litigants a reasonable trial and the assumption of blamelessness. It has a sort of stark straightforwardness: Other than a brief setup and epilog, the whole film happens inside of a little New York City juror room, on "the most smoking day of the year," as twelve men discuss the destiny of a youthful respondent accused of killing his dad.

Fallacies in 12 Angry Men 12 Angry Men- a 1957 film, rather a courtroom drama, is full of emotions represented in arguments and intellectual brainstorming. Directed by Sidney Lumet, the film is an example of intellectual art. The film is based the story of a 18-year old slum boy who was on trial for killing his father by stabbing him. The judges, after seeing all the evidences and witnesses, actually leave the decision to the jury, to decide whether the boy was guilty or not. Also, if the jury decides that the boy is guilty, he would have to face the electric chair.

12 Angry men is about 12 jury members and a foreman who are trying to determine if a boy is innocent or guilty. The case is about a boy who allegedly killed his father. All of the Jurors thought the boy with guilty but one, which was number 8. He wanted to make sure that everyone knew all the evidence so, they would be sure before they send a boy to jail. Number 3 was very strongly convinced throughout the whole trial that the boy was guilty.

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

What if one day, twenty years from now you were chosen to discuss the fate of an eighteen year old boy. What would you do? Would you take your job and do it responsibly, or would you do it like some of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men and blow it off so you can finish early and leave. Even though there was a lot of controversy in that jury room, I noticed that Jurors 3,7, and 9 used their personalities, beliefs, and views of their responsibilities to bring the boy on trial to justice. This very excitable juror is the last to change his vote, and while his stubbornness could be seen as being based more on emotions than facts, he starts off with his little notebook with facts of the case and tries to insist that he has no personal feelings on the matter.

Introduction Colin Ferguson was convicted of the December 7, 1993 shooting of 25 people aboard the Long Island Rail Road commuter train out of Penn Station at Merillon Avenue station in Garden City, New York, New York. He killed six and wounded nineteen before being stopped by three of the passengers: Kevin Blum, Mark McEntee, and Mike O'Connor. Ferguson's trial was notable for a number of unusual developments, including his firing of his defense counsel and insisting on representing himself and examining himself as a live witness. Before the trial, William Kunstler and Ron Kuby attempted to argue that Ferguson was driven to mental illness through years of living in an oppressive and racist society.

“The boy is five feet eight inches tall. His father was six feet two inches tall. That’s a difference of six inches. It’s a very awkward thing to stab down into the chest of someone who’s half a foot taller than you are. ”-(Juror two, 54)