The Value of Human Life in 'Twelve Angry Men'

Many people, if asked what they would prefer, would prefer to read the book instead of watching the movie. It could be because the movie will always leave some parts from the story out. It seems like directors of the movie always leave out parts from the book, only incorporating the important parts from the story. Some also say that they prefer to leave the descriptions of things in the book up to their imagination. Also, when you are reading the book, you get to read the main characters point of view on things. You get to see what goes on in their mind while they go through their everyday life. After reading the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, I would say that there were many similarities between the play and the movie, but there were also many differences.

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

"Don 't judge a book by its cover" is a famous saying that some of us heard it before and some of us experienced it. 12 jurors were experiencing this quote when they gathered to decide whether a young boy is guilty by killing his father or not. Juror 2 stated, "Well, anyway, I think he was guilty" (6). Juror 2 represent most of us, as sometimes we judge from what we hear and not from what we see. The 12 jurors are from various backgrounds and each one has a distinctive personality. What is worth our attention in this movie is how in the beginning they are trying to convince each other to vote guilty. 11 juror voted guilty and only one voted not guilty. Their judgments were based upon either their past personal experience which created their thoughts and behavior or upon facts. Juror 8 represents the conscience. He stood up for his inner feelings that the accused young boy is innocent. Moreover, when everyone decided that the boy is guilty, he suggested that they should talk about it first. Furthermore, he said that he didn 't

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. His forceful personality is used to getting its own way and being in

Reasonable doubt proves that critical thinking is important when someone’s life is in someone else’s hands. “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, is a play about twelve jury members who must deliberate and decide the fate of a man who is accused of murdering his father. These twelve men must unanimously agree on whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty without reasonable doubt. Just like the jurors, the readers of this play have not witnessed the crime that took place before the trial started. Everyone, but the writer, is in the dark about who committed the crime. This is an important element when deciding who the best and worst jurors were. There were no facts as to who was right or wrong because we didn’t see the crime in question. All

He displays the tendency of an introverted Pragmatist with the Thinker preferences. Therefore, it takes him very long and requires several opinions laid out by other Jurors to change his mind from ‘guilty’ to ‘not guilty’. At the same time, he was firm and unafraid to stand up for himself once he changed his vote. He is sympathetic towards the boy as he grew up in the slum himself which caused him to disagree with Juror 3 numerous time. Therefore, his own upbringing in the slum makes him more knowledgeable about how the boy could have handled the switchblades and also the traits of living in the slum in

While both end up voting the same way, their approaches throughout the majority of the film are vastly different. To start, the third juror is much more factual, stating in the film, “Okay let’s get the facts… and he ran to the door of his apartment and the boy!”(12 Angry Men) This immediately shows the viewer that Juror 3 will base the majority of his argument in fact. In contrast, Juror 8 feels that communicating with the other jurors and piecing together their views is a better way to solve the case. This is shown when Juror 8 says, “There were eleven votes guilty. It’s not so easy for me to send a boy off to die without talking about it first.”(12 Angry Men) In the first difference, Juror 7 falls with Juror 3, believing much more of the facts than discussion. The second difference with the approach of the two jurors is in their persuasions techniques. As for Juror 3, he prefers loud, yelling, and calling people out and telling them they are wrong. This is why Juror 3 is represented with a lightning bolt. On the outside, he is obviously quick striking, hot, and loud. He can obviously be seen in the film yelling and attacking every character. On the other hand, Juror 8 is more tranquil, and cool, and will let anyone speak. He is often seen asking other jurors to elaborate on their opinion, not just tell them they are wrong. The cool blue, soft circle shows his willingness to listen, and not have a

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. This happened while the vote was nine to three, nine voted innocent and three voted guilty. Three and four turned their backs towards number ten because they disagreed on why they thought the boy was guilty.

8th juror appeals to their sense of pathos and pity by saying “this boy’s been kicked around all his life…He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.” While this has nothing to do with the case, he hopes to appeal to their humanity in order to get them to give him a chance in these deliberations. Many of the jurors use logos, logic and reasoning, to lay out the evidence in a rational and concrete manner to convince him. An example is when 4th Juror lays out all of the evidence of the knife to convince 8th Juror with seven, linear, factual points. The reader and audience is meant to connect a sense of ethos, reliability or competence, to 8th Juror, as he is the only one who doesn’t, at first, seem to be clouded by ignorance, racism, disinterest, or any other characteristic that might cloud

He is a rational stockbroker who analyzes the case from every angle. He focused on facts and not much else. His verdict was guilty throughout the majority of the movie. His reasoning was the lady who claimed to see the puerto-rican boy kill his father from out her window across the street. He said that all the other evident could be thrown out due to this evidence. His point made others question their not guilty verdict. One man even changed his mind back to guilty. This man is obviously very knowledgeable, however he missed some key parts to the

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.

Usually others opinions cause the justice system to be worse than it has to be. A danger of relying on twelve individuals in a court system means that there are some that would be biased about the case. Juror 5 was biased for relating this case to himself because he was from the slums and so was the boy on trial. “The children who come out of slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society” (Rose 318). Juror 3 was being biased in the play because his son hit or abused him like how the boy is being tried for stabbing or abusing his father. “When he was fifteen he hit me in the face” (Rose 317). Other times in real life that people could be biased is they have

He found faults in mostly all those around him, especially those of a different race or financial class. Throughout the play, he kept throwing his prejudice around the Juror room so the others could vote guilty. The more we hear from Juror #10, the more we realize how ignorant he was. Eventually, he launched into one final rant, a hateful discrimination speech, "Well, don 't you know about them? There 's a... There 's a danger here. These people are dangerous. They 're... wild. Listen to me. Listen to me."

The film “Twelve Angry Men” involves a lot of logical fallacies, some of which are quite prominent and provocative. Like for eg. The fallacies which involve racism and bigotry of Juror #10 and the anger revealed which manifests into personal anguish by Juror#3. The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar

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.