ipl-logo

Twelve Angry Men Stereotypes

587 Words3 Pages

Twelve Correct Jurors ¨Murder in the first degree… premeditated homicide… is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts¨ (Rose, 9). A 19-year-old ¨boy¨ is on trial for the gruesome stabbing of his father. In Twelve Angry Men adapted by Reginald Rose, the jurors came to the right decision; in this case, with the evidence presented, the 19-year-old man is innocent! The woman who testified couldn't have seen it, the old man couldn't have heard it, and a trained knife fighter—like the man was—wouldn't have left a stab wound like the one left in the man´s father. ¨No one wears eyeglasses to bed¨ (61). The woman testified, under oath, against the defendant that she clearly saw the murder committed through the windows of a passing L-train, at night, without her much needed bifocals on. If nobody wears glasses to bed, how would she have seen the defendant commit murder? She couldn´t have; therefore her testimony should be discounted, which leaves room for reasonable doubt. The old man in Twelve Angry Men fell under the widely accepted stereotype of an old person, slow, can't walk well, loss of hearing, etc. When the old man was brought up to the stand he was walking very slowly. In fact, ¨they had to help him into the witness chair¨ (40)! The old man testified it …show more content…

When a detective identifies an innocent 19-year-old man as a suspect for his dad's murder when this man is clearly innocent, the detective´s integrity should be brought into question. When Reginald Rose adapted this play, he knew what the original author (Sherman L. Sergel) didn't… this case is open and shut. Innocent. Why is the guilt of this man still questioned? Maybe English teachers are running out of ideas, or because we as a society are always curious and left wanting

Show More
Related

  • Mr Knight Not Interrogated

    917 Words  | 4 Pages

    Knight was also not interrogated because, though Officer Davis’ questions related to the crime that Mr. Knight was later charged with, Officer Davis had no information to connect Mr. Knight to Ms. Stone’s murder at the time of the interaction. Just as the defendant in Andrews was not a suspect in any crime despite his suspicious behavior, Mr. Knight was not a suspect in any crime even though Officer Davis thought that “something seemed a bit off” with him. Thus, like the officers in Andrews, who did not know that the defendant had committed a crime and therefore could not know their questions would elicit an incriminating response, Officer Davis similarly did not know Mr. Knight was involved in Ms. Stone’s death and could not know her questions would elicit Mr. Knight’s incriminating statements. Since the Andrews court held that the defendant was not interrogated because his statements were not reasonably foreseeable since he was not a suspect in any crime, the fact that Mr. Knight was also not a suspect in any crime means that he was not interrogated his statements were not reasonably foreseeable. Rather, like the defendant in Andrews who seemingly volunteered information about his possession of child pornography—which officers had not asked about—out of guilt, Mr. Knight also seemed to volunteer his connection with Ms. Stone’s death out of guilt.

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay: The Murder Of Fortunato

    734 Words  | 3 Pages

    All rise for the honorary Judge Briskey. Please be seated. Mr. Montresor you are being charged with 1st degree murder of Fortunato due to the confession made to Mark Heyer about the murder how do you plea. Not guilty your honor. Very well the prosecution may proceed with their opening statement and i advise the jury to pay close attention to detail to determine the right judgement of this man.

    Read More

  • Character Differences In 12 Angry Men

    1133 Words  | 5 Pages

    The Film 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, is a film written about the American jury system. In the film, as in any part in life, emotions are a tricky thing; This is especially true for the 3rd, 7th, and 8th jurors. One of the main themes in the film questions that of the emotions of the jurors. That question is: Is it possible to keep personal prejudice and emotions out of a trial? Is this even a good or bad thing?

    Read More

  • Ethos, Pathos, Pathos And Logos In 12 Angry Men

    1964 Words  | 8 Pages

    "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.

    Read More

  • Examples Of Innocence In 12 Angry Men

    333 Words  | 2 Pages

    One piece of evidence that proves the boy’s innocence is accuracy of the Old man’s testimony. In the play the jurors are arguing over whether or not the man heard the phrase “I’m going to kill you”. According to evidence, the noise of the train passing would be much too loud to hear anything,

    Read More

  • Ethos Pathos In 12 Angry Men

    997 Words  | 4 Pages

    Some of the arguments and issues with the case that he seems to care most about are the knife Juror #8 bought that is similar to the murder weapon and how fast it took the old man to get to the door. In Act 1, Juror #4 begins to explain that the knife used is very unusual. That even the store-keeper that sold the knife had never seen a weapon like that before. Juror #8 then argues that someone could have possibly gotten a knife similar to the one the boy had and then “reaches into his pocket and swiftly withdraws a knife... they are exactly alike”(23).

    Read More

  • Examples Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men

    915 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Standing Up To The Majority In 12 Angry Men

    1191 Words  | 5 Pages

    The play 12 Angry Men is about a jury of twelve men that are given the task of deciding the fate, guilty or not guilty, of a young boy accused of murdering his father. The theme of standing up against the majority is very prevalent in this story because of the decisions some of the jurors make throughout the play. Juror 8 makes the decision to vote not guilty, he is the one and only juror in this play that decides to vote not guilty for the boy in the beginning. The other eleven jurors decide to vote guilty because of the evidence that they have been presented with. 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.

    Read More

  • Evidence In 12 Angry Men

    488 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Juror Eight And Juror Three In John Steinbeck's 12 Angry Men

    502 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the play 12 Angry Men, a murder case is being reviewed by a jury. This jury must decide if a kid who killed his father is guilty or not. Two jurors that were on opposing sides for most of the play was Juror Eight and Juror Three. The reason they were on opposing sides was because Juror Three believed the kid was guilty, while Juror Eight believed there was not enough evidence to convict him. Most of the jurors wanted to settle on having reasonable doubt, so another jury could be called in.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Stereotypes In 12 Angry Men

    747 Words  | 3 Pages

    He fills in an X and hands the pencil to NO. 12.” (12 Angry Men). He thinks the only pieces of evidence are the witnesses because they said they saw the killing even though there was flaws within their testimony. After further investigation, he agrees the boy is not guilty. Then, juror number three persuades number twelve

    Read More

  • How Is Fallacies Used In 12 Angry Men

    1783 Words  | 8 Pages

    12 Angry Men Essay The movie 12 Angry Men, is about a son who may have committed murder, killing his father, and 12 jurors have to either prove him innocent or guilty. There are jurors who are fixed on saying that the 19 year old boy is guilty of murdering his father, but there are other jurors who are saying he is innocent until they have proof to say that he is guilty. There are many instances when the jurors use fallacies, deductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning when they are trying to prove either that the boy is guilty or innocent.

    Read More

  • Reasonable Doubt In Twelve Angry Men

    1011 Words  | 5 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Analysis

    814 Words  | 4 Pages

    ‘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.

    Read More

  • Social Psychology In The Movie Twelve Angry Men

    721 Words  | 3 Pages

    The movie “Twelve Angry Men” illustrates lots of social psychology theories. This stretched and attractive film, characterize a group of jurors who have to decide the innocence or guiltiness of an accused murder. They are simply deliberating the destiny of a Puerto Rican teenaged boy accused of murdering his father. Initially, as the film begins, except the juror Davis (Henry Fonda), all other jurors vote guilty. Progressively, the jurors begin trying to compromise on a point that everybody agree because the decision of the jury has to be unanimous.

    Read More

More about Twelve Angry Men Stereotypes

Open Document