Standing Up To The Majority In 12 Angry Men

People act upon what they think. Within “12 Angry Men”, all of the jurors have an opinion but some voice their more than others. One juror in particular, Juror Ten, voices his opinion about the boy in question. Repeatedly throughout the play, Juror Ten makes many thoughtless and hurtful comments about a certain kind of people. It is clear that Juror Ten’s uncompromising belief that the accused is guilty is because of his dislike for the boy’s race. His prejudice is clear when he says that “I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say” when speaking about the boy (16). Juror Ten’s prejudice causes him to disregard all of the facts that are presented to him by Juror Eight that can prove that the accused is not guilty. Juror 10 allows his prejudice to blind him of the truth. That is until he is called out by his fellow jurors. Throughout 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. 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. It only allows them to

After watching 12 Angry Men, I was very inspired by juror 8 ' argument techniques. His eye contact, body language, tone, the persuasive techniques he used like induction, pathos, ethos and logos should be studied and analyzed in a very detailed, precise way. These factors were strong enough to change 11 angry men 's mind and to vote not guilty, even juror 3 who is the most stubborn. 12 Angry Men 's message toward individuals and the society as a whole is to think once and twice before judging, how to have a successful, convincing argument and most importantly, it encourage everyone to stand up for your opinion. One of the reasons why everyone should speak up is sometimes other people are thinking the same way, but they are not brave enough to express their opinion. What if juror 8 did not have the courage to freely state his opinion? The innocent boy would be dead for doing absolutely nothing.

Having a biased jury is just one way Twelve Angry Men shows the dangers of the jury system. Throughout the course of the play, many of the jurors assume, because

‘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.

Crenshaw’s Mapping the Margins: The Marginalization of Women of Color Analyzed Through Generalization and A Feminist Lens

One can be easily mislead or persuade in a direction they do not agree with. However this is not the case with Juror 8 (Mr. Davis) in the film 12 Angry Men. In this film, twelve jurors try to identify whether or not the convicted eighteen year-old boy is guilty of murdering his father with a switchblade knife. If the puerto-rican boy is found guilty, he will be sent to the electric chair and sentenced to death. The movie begins in the humid jury room by taking a vote to see whether or not the boy is guilty: eleven guilties and one not guilty. At this point Mr. Davis (the only not guilty vote) could have easily switched his vote and sentenced the boy to death, however he did not. This is where some men get aggravated. This film shows the many ways the men try to persuade one another to change their vote through the characters of Mr. Davis (Juror 8), Juror 4, and Mr. McCardle (Juror 9).

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. This process continues throughout the course of the movie, and each juror’s biases is slowly revealed. Earlier through the movie, it is already justifiable to label juror 10 as a bigoted racist as he reveals strong racist tendencies against the defendant, stating his only reason for voting guilty is the boy’s ethnicity and background.

Our life experiences make our present, our values, our way of behaving and thinking. Although no one is perfect, we are prone to develop prejudice against those who are totally different from us.

In the movie “12 Angry Men”, various Ways of Knowing are identified by the TOK course such as emotions, perception and reason. The film demonstrates the role that emotion plays in the aim of knowledge, if we can truly trust our sense to perceive what the world really is, and is arguing through reasoning significant?

In all facets of human life there is a constant pressure. One of the most potent forms of this is peer pressure. It affects how humans make decisions, in all facets of an everyday life. Peer is a force that can bring out the best and worst of humanity. Additionally, in the context of Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men peer pressure is used to highlight the best and worst aspects of the American judicial system circa 1954. A further understanding of peer pressure and its effects on people helps to provide a deeper understanding of Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men.

The Declaration of Independence, The Emancipation Proclamation, and The Constitution all declared everyone of all color to be free ;however, people are still segregated and denied their rights based on the color of their skin. In the speech “I have a Dream” by Dr.Martin Luther King Jr. he persuades his audience to treat everyone (of all color) as equals and to give everyone the rights that they deserve. This speech was the most compelling because there were many rhetorical devices being used which helped emphasize the idea of all men being equal and free. It also emphasized how much he fought to be equal with no hatred in his heart.

Twelve Angry Men was about a group of jurors struggle to come with a verdict for a murder case. In the beginning, all but one tenacious juror believed that the eighteen year old boy was guilty of murdering his father.The main problem of the story was that the jurors verdict had to be unanimous. Through the process of trying to get each other to change positions, the jurors face many arguments and disagreements. The jurors personalities clash multiple times because each one has a different view on things and are adamant in their decisions. Well, there were only two very adamant people throughout the whole story and that was juror eight and juror three. In the end, Juror three is the one to finally give up and side with the rest of the jurors

In, Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, there is a group of twelve jurors that are deliberating about a homicide case in New York. There are two jurors, Juror 3 and Juror 11, who have very different backgrounds and they disagree on a lot of things. Juror 11 is a German immigrant who views America as a new life of happiness while Juror 3 is an entrepreneur who is very proud of himself for having his own business. Throughout Act 1, the two jurors show how different they view America. For example, Juror 11 chooses to change his stance on the case to “Not Guilty” and when he does people start yelling at him. After they calm down a little he responds by saying, “Please. I would like to say something here. I have always thought that in this country

Imagine a world of complete segregation, where everything you do is with people only of your race. A world without freedom which is what our country stands for. It’s a ridiculous thought to have lived through. Such leaders of the Civil Rights movement thought that it was outlandish as well. MLK and Malcolm X, two strong leaders of the Civil Rights movement, had two completely different strategies for changing that reality in their day to day life. MLK held a peaceful point of view as Malcolm X held an aggressive stance on the situation. Malcolm X’s aggressive strategy was seen as a force that didn’t accept the racial segregation. MLK’s tactic was showing that blacks and whites can live together in peace. Together they produced a society that

“I have a dream that one day...little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.” Spoken straight from the lips of a remarkable man, these are words that almost every American knows. They are words spoken from a man with an infinite amount of strength, hope, and determination. They are words spoken from a man that believed strongly in equality and from someone who wasn’t afraid to stand up for that belief, which is a truly admirable trait to have. They are words spoken from a man who is a beacon of hope for many, and from a man who aided America in becoming what it is today. Most significantly, however, they are words spoken from a man I consider to be a true hero: Martin Luther King Jr.