12 Angry Men, a film that surprisingly caught my interest, was released in 1957. It is about a first-degree murder case against an eighteen-year-old boy from the slums. This film takes place in a private courthouse room with twelve jurors who have to decide the boys’ fate, guilty or not. From the beginning juror eight seems like the protagonist of the film, when really, juror nine is. He stands up with juror eight when nobody else will, provides perspective through his experiences, and notices details that nobody else does.
After entering the private room, the jurors had a preliminary vote to determine where the verdict stood from the beginning. All of the jurors had already decided ahead of time that the young boy was guilty with the exception
…show more content…
Both of these witnesses gave convincing testimonies that if not closely examined could possibly send the boy to his death. In the females testimony she claims she was in bed tossing and turning trying to get some sleep when she heard the boy yell, “I’m going to kill you”. Under those circumstances it is highly unlikely that she would be wearing glasses, right? During the jurors discussion juror nine remembers seeing marks on the side of the woman’s face that implies she wears glasses, if proved to need them her evidence would then become unreliable. In the males testimony he claims the boy yelled, “I’m going to kill you”, and the body hit the floor. Henry Fonda tries demonstrating that, if all the witnesses are telling the truth then it should be impossible for the old man to hear anything other than the passing train. This brings the jurors to a conclusion that he must be lying, but why? Based on the olds man appearance in court, juror nine suggests that the old man just wanted attention, which could explain why the old man testified that he saw the perpetrator fleeing the murder scene, when his ability to have done so was in doubt. He was so eager for the chance to be part of a murder investigation and trial that it superseded his good sense. With all of that being said, juror nine is not the only one supporting Henry Fonda
The jurors took a vote and saw the ratio at eleven for guilty and only one for not guilty. When they repeatedly attacked his point of view, his starting defense was that the boy was innocent until proven guilty, not the opposite as the others had seen it. After Henry Fonda instilled doubt in the mind of another juror, the two worked together to weaken the barriers of hatred and prejudice that prevented them from seeing the truth. The jurors changed their minds one at a time until the ratio stood again at eleven to one, this time in favor of acquittal. At this point, the jurors who believed the defendant was not guilty worked together to prove to the one opposing man that justice would only be found if they returned a verdict of not guilty. They proved this man wrong by using his personal experiences in life to draw him into a series of deadly contradictions.
In the play Twelve Angry Men, a tough decision rests in the hands of twelve jurors as they discuss whether or not a minor is guilty of murdering his father. What is originally seen as a very black and white case becomes more complicated when the jurors begin to question if the evidence is enough to convict and execute a teenage boy. In particular, the author, Reginald Rose, includes a juror who unequivocally believes that the defendant is guilty. We soon find out that Juror 3 harbors a grudge against his own son, who ran away years ago. Juror 3's convictions are not fueled by the case's evidence, but instead by his want for revenge.
Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three
12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are the jury for an 18 year old accused of murder. The judge states in the opening scene that it is a premeditated murder in the 1st degree, if found guilty will automatically receive the death penalty. The 18 year old male is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade, in their home. The prosecutors have several eye witness testimonies, and all of the evidence that they could need to convict the 18 year old male. In the movie it takes place on the hottest day of the year in New York City. There are 12 jurors whom are to decide if the evidence is enough to convict the teen of murder in the first degree. In the first initial vote it is 11-1. The only way that the jurors could turn in their votes was if there was unanimous vote either guilty or not guilty among the 12 jurors. As the movie progressed the jurors ended up changing their minds as new evidence was brought to their attention by simple facts that were overlooked by the police and prosecutors in the initial investigation. Tempers were raised, and words flew, there was prejudice and laziness of a few of the jurors that affected the amount of time it took to go over all of the eye witness testimonies and evidence. The eye witness testimonies ended up being proven wrong and some of the evidence was thrown out because it was put there under false pretense.
Twelve angry men is a play about twelve jurors who have to decide if the defendant is guilty of murdering his father, the play consist of many themes including prejudice, intolerance, justice , and courage. The play begins with a judge explaining to the jurors their job and how in order for the boy to be sent to death the vote must be unanimous. The jurors are then locked into a small room on a hot summer day. At first, it seems as though the verdict is obvious until juror eight decides to vote not guilty. From that moment on, the characters begin to show their true colors. Some of the characters appear to be biased and prejudice while others just want justice and the truth. Twelve Angry Men Despite many of the negative qualities we see
Based on the development of the personalities of the jurors so far in Act One, I think that juror nine will be most likely to side with juror number eight. Through examining the text presented in Reginald Rose’s play 12 Angry Men, I can infer that juror number nine is most likely to side with the adamant juror eight’s opinion on the verdict of the boy since nine’s opinions, though minimal, shed a miniscule light on his vast inner thoughts on the case. An example of this would be when juror number nine is inputting his view on how fast everyone is moving with the decision of the case when he says “It’s only one night. A man may die” (Rose 25). In other words, juror number nine does not believe that a man’s life should be taken for granted and
Throughout the movie, there are a numerous types of persuasion techniques are used both effective and ineffective. One is the use of stereotypes to try to win over the votes. Saying this such as “Slums in the breeding ground for criminals” literally claiming that he must be guilty just because of where he is from. An example of an effective method of persuasion used is when juror 8 started contemplating the old man’s witness testimony and the hearing of the yelling while the load un bearable train is going by. Also about the old man’s testimony about him running to the front door through a 40 + feet hallway in about 15 seconds. Juror 8 demonstrated the old man walking down the hall and having another juror time this demonstration to prove his point and to convince the other jurors that this was indeed not possible. Another example of persuasion is when juror 8 pulls out the exact same pocket knife that was used for the murder to show the rest of the jury that it is possible that the boy was telling the truth about the knife. Even juror 12 tried to persuade the jury to somewhat sympathize for him and to still vote for the defendant guilty by talking about his own relationship with his own son. Of course, there are many more examples throughout the movie but after all these different acts of persuasion were performed you do see jurors start to doubt their original perspective.
The movie, 12 Angry Men is about twelve white men deciding the jail sentence of an 18-year old boy who has allegedly committed murder by stabbing his father. The men must decide if the boy is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt awaiting a death sentence by electric chair. The first scene of the movie is the jurors waling into one room and Juror number 1(foreman) is seen leader of the deliberation. He tells the jurors to gather around a table and explains that the goal of the deliberation is to vote on the sentence of a boy’s guiltiness and innocence. After no deliberation at first, everyone quickly unanimously votes guilty. Everyone except one juror; who explains the reason why he couldn’t cast his vote guilty was because he couldn’t decide such
Twelve Angry Men, is a play written by Reginald Rose. The play is about the process of individuals and a court case, which is determining the fate of a teenager. It presents the themes of justice, independence and ignorance. Rose emphasises these three themes through the characters and the dialogue. Justice is the principle of moral rightness or equity. This is shown through juror number eight who isn’t sure whether or not the boy is actually innocent or guilty, but he persists to ask questions and convinces the other jurors to think about the facts first. Independence is shown through both juror number three and ten. They both believe that the defendant is guilty until they both realise that they can not relate there past experiences with the court case. Ignorance is shown throughout all the jurors during the play, it is also brought out through the setting of the play.
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
The film 12 Angry Men depicts the challenge faced by a jury as they deliberate the charges brought against an 18-year-old boy for the first-degree murder of his father. Their task is to come to an impartial verdict, based on the testimony that was heard in court. The group went through the case over and over while personal prejudices, personality differences, and tension mounted as the process evolved. While the scorching hot weather conditions and personal affairs to tend to led the juror to make quick and rash decisions, one juror convinced them the fate of the 18 year old was more important than everyone’s problems an convinced them that they could not be sure he was guilty. Juror three took the most convincing. After fighting till he
The movie 12 Angry Men depicts the story of 12 men serving on a jury who must determine the destiny of a young man charged with murdering his father (Lidz, 1995). This study represents the analysis of 12 Angry Men movie by applying Tuckman's Stages, to determine if these men acted as a group or a team, as well as analyze the dynamics of this group of men as they weighed the confirmation, demonstration, and personal agendas.
For example, the old man that lived beneath the boy and his father testified that he heard a fight between the boy and the father and heard the boy yell, “I’m gonna kill you,” along with a body hitting the ground, and then claims that he saw the boy running down the stairs. With this information, along with other powerful eyewitness testimonies, all but one of the jury members believed this boy was guilty. The power of eyewitness testimony is also shown in Loftus’s (1974) study. In this study, Loftus (1974) found that those who claimed to “see” something were usually believed even when their testimony is pointless. She discovered in her study that only 18 percent of people convicted if there was no eyewitness testimony, 72 percent of people convicted when someone declared, “That’s the one!”, and even when the witness only had 20/400 vision and was not wearing glasses and claimed “That’s the one!”, 68 percent of people still convicted the person. This proves that in 12 Angry Men and Loftus (1974) study, eyewitness testimony is very powerful and influential in one’s decision to convict a
The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in a population. The juror that seemed interesting is Juror #8, who was played by Henry Fonda. Juror #8, or Davis, is an architect, the first dissenter and protagonist in the film. He was the first one to declare that the young man was innocent and he managed to convince the other jurors to see his point of view. Durkheim states that when we respond to deviance, it brings people together (Macionis, 2013, p. 159). We affirm the moral ties that bind us together, which was seen in the movie. At first, almost all of the jurors were so bent on convicting the young man based on their feelings, but they then started to analyze the facts and they came together to make their final decision.
The life of an 18-year-old Latino male hangs in the balance of 12 male jurors. The jury has to decide if the young Latino killed his father by stabbing him to death. The young man will receive the death sentence if the jurors find him guilty. The jurors go back to their private room to further discuss the case. Juror #8 is the only person that had reasonable doubt and believed that the young man might not guilty. They must come to a unanimous decision. The jurors discuss their points of view and Juror #8 questions the two witnesses that supposedly heard and seen the young man killing his father. After heated deliberation, the vote is unanimous and the young Latino man is declared not guilty.