Guilty Or Not? In the film, 12 Angry Men, an 18-year boy was accused of murdering his father. 12 Angry men come to together in one room for ninety minutes to come to an agreement. While this is happening emotions, racial slurs, and apathy are bouncing off the walls.
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)
“A person is innocent until proved guilty in a court of law” In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, an 18-year-old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence, the three that are in doubt are the old man hearing “I’m going to kill you!” as well as the weapon of choice and how it was replicated, and finally the woman’s testimony. In my opinion, the boy could have been proven guilty, based on these the boy is not guilty.
Men in both The Crucible and in Twelve Angry Men were angry because of the situations placed upon them. Juror three’s bad relationship with his son was reminded to him during this case, angering him. Infuriated with the claims that Salem was impure, the court sought to eliminate anyone associated with it. Many convicted of witchcraft were either poor or of a minority group. Likewise, the boy was of a minority group, people who are viewed as inferior.
A kid kills his father” (Rose). The two jurors that stand out as the father figures of the play are juror number eight and juror number three, though both in very different ways. Juror number three from the beginning looks over the boy, being the first to vote not guilty. There were eleven votes for guilty. It’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first” (Rose).
Twelve Angry Men “A person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” In the play, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a nineteen years old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence were presented, the three that are weak include the one of a kind knife, the old men who heard the words “I’m going to kill you!” and the woman who is in question because of her glasses. Based on these, the boy is not guilty.
In this essay, I will be talking about four memorable people during the Salem Witch Trials. These four people have their own reasons for what they did and did not do, and I will explain how their backgrounds had such a lasting impact in the Salem Witch Trials. Giles Corey was a very wealthy stranger who had arrived with his fourth wife, Martha. Feelings of hatred emerged with the Putnams after he unwittingly testified against his wife, who was sentenced to death.
The film, 12 angry men is about 12 members of the jury that is trying to solve a trial of a murder. There is a juror named, Henry Fonda. Throughout the argument the jurors were really biased. There were many attributions in the film. One of it is when Henry Fonda made the point when the boy got pushed around all his life and he was treated really poorly.
12 Angry Men:-Psychological Behaviour Analysis Signs Of attributions There were many examples of attribution errors and biases in the movie. For example (an actor observer bias) the kid (Victim) is known to have yelled "I'm going to kill you" on the night of the murder. Cobb says no one would threaten to kill anyone unless he mean it (internal attribution)(0:46:25)&(0:46:45) .But after some time Fonda involves cobb into some argument and indirectly makes him yell "I'll kill you".
Leadership and roles are depicted throughout the whole movie by many different jurors. The designated leader of the jury group was Juror #1. Juror #1 was when they first entered into the room but Juror #8 took the emergent role when he declined to agree with a guilty verdict. His rejection to agree in a guilty verdict was crucial since he voiced his uncertainty to the evidence at a early stage.