Leadership In 12 Angry Men

In order for the jury to make a decision, they needed a unanimous vote. All the jurors went into an exclusive room to discuss whether the defendant is innocent or guilty of the crime. The climax of the play is Juror #8 was beginning to show proof of evidence that defendant did not murder his father and some of the jurors began to switch their vote. Juror #8 began to discuss more evidence that did not link the defendant to the crime. The falling action in the play is that almost all the jurors decided to switch their vote from guilty to innocent except Juror #3.

Rotten kid! You work your heart out” (Twelve Angry Men). Every single other jury member has some reason as to why they voted, whether it be prejudice, gut feeling, based on the evidence, or just voting with the majority so they can all go home. Juror 3 is different. While everyone else contributes something about the case into their reason, Juror 3 simply chooses guilty based on events in his past.

People will always be biased from their own experiences. Especially in today's time people are racist, angry, and just do not want to take time out of their everyday lives for jury duty. This trial was completely backwards; instead of going from innocent until proven guilty, it went from guilty to innocent. This movie makes one wonder how often juries really are this way, instead of innocent until proven guilty. Mr. Davis had an extremely hard time convincing all the jurors that there was a reasonable doubt.

As completely opposite as these two perspectives seem, each represents opposing sides of social injustice and ultimately deliver similar messages. In 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.

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 but Juror number ten said otherwise. The evidence that is shown to prove this point is when all the jurors are all at the table and they all go to the window and turn their backs towards juror number ten, specifically juror numbers three and four.

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. Without this, the boy would have been given an unfair trial, and possibly had been prosecuted wrongly for a crime he didn’t do. The play wouldn’t have been able to continue without this, because the jurors would simply convict him as guilty and the boy would be put in jail. This play is a perfect example of how standing up to the majority is prevalent and

To try and pull this case together, and maybe save a man’s life. When your pinned against the wall, would you give into what the rest of the crowd thinks or would you dig your heels in deep and push back? That’s what Juror 8 did he pushed back, and gave this trial his all. Some might even say he is the hero of the story; but how could you be a hero if you let a murderer loose? “I urge you to deliberate honestly, and thoughtfully.

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.

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 twelve take a seat and a vote is taken. The greater part of the members of the jury vote "Guilty," with the exception of the Eighth Juror, who votes "Not Guilty," which, because of the prerequisite of a consistent jury, constrains them to talk about the case. The members of the jury respond brutally against this contradicting vote. At last,

One reason was because a vast majority of the people accused were family and friends of other people. These people began to question the righteousness of the court and felt that innocent people were being executed. The main reason for the end of the trials was, because the accusations soon became too bold. In the beginning, people of low class were being accused, making it seem more believable. As the hunt continued, accusations were aimed at higher classed people.

Not only did the attorney use no real evidence to support his case towards Jefferson but the attorney also was not confident in his case. In one part of the court scenes Jefferson’s attorney states “He is innocent from all charges against him. But let’s just say he was not. Let us for a moment say he was not. What justice would there be to take this life?” ( Gaines pg: 8) This is a perfect example on how the attorney believes Jefferson is guilty in his case because in the end he gave the jury a mental image for a moment to vision Jefferson being guilty and then comparing the relationship on whether it matters to keep this man alive or not.

In The Road by Cormac McCarthy, the story talks about a boy and his father after the apocalypse. The setting is so terrible the father needs the sustenance of the past. The father wants to commemorate the past, but it misleads him from survival, due to the pain he obtains from it. While the boy was sleeping, the man acquired a flashback. It was the understanding of not saving his wife, furthermore admitting he should have tried to “keep her in their lives” (Pg.54).