Guilt In Twelve Angry Men

815 Words4 Pages
It is now your duty to separate the facts from the fancies. One mans dead another mans life is at stake. If theres a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused a reasonable doubt then you must bring me a verdict of not guilty. If however there is no reasonable doubt then you must in good conscience find the accused guilty. However you decide your verdict must be unanimous. (Twelve Angry Men 02:03)

Twelve men sit in deliberation room in New York City to decide a verdict of an eighteen-year-old boys trial. Eleven men let their biases get in the way of justice; one man is not sure but wants to discuss the case. In the 1957 MGM film Twelve Angry Men, the jurors reveal their prejudice through their attitudes, actions, and beliefs.

Although eleven of the jurors were angry, the attitude of Juror Eight
…show more content…
The Jurors were not very open to hearing every detail that Juror Eight gave to prove the boy’s innocence. He had a positive attitude that was not changing at all; he stood up for the boy even if the boy did murder his father. Juror Eight did not wait for others to defend the kid, he stood up and started the process. Bernard Roth, a Stanford professor and author of The Achievement Habit writes, “You can sit around in the dark waiting for the light to come on, or you can get up walk across the room, and flip the switch yourself” (Roth 105). This quote ties in with Twelve Angry Men because Roth is saying that a person can wait for something to happen on its own, or they can get up and do something about it. That is what Juror Eight did; he was the first to vote not guilty, and he stood up for the boy because he did not believe that the kid was completely guilty. His actions were what made the jury see why he voted not guilty and he saved the kid’s life by standing alone and showing his
Open Document