The film 12 Angry Men consisted of twelve members of the jury who tried to solve a murder trial case. Trapped in a room, all men put their heads together by communicating and listening to each other. Each juror voted unanimously and in order for them to make a decision every juror had to agree to the same thing. However, out of all the jurors (Henry Fonda) the architect had a different perspective. Just when all eleven jurors had agreed that the boy was guilty the architect stood up and said the boy was not guilty. The case was about a lady who had given her testimony in court swearing she saw the little boy kill his own father. One boy's fate is on one man’s hand. As the architect tried to prove his point towards the others, the old juror …show more content…
He spoke up and stood up for himself even when he was alone. Although the eleven jurors plead the boy guilty, they were being non rational. They did not have enough evidence to accuse the boy guilty they just based it on the little boy’s culture and where he came from. Therefore, the architect saw things differently and wanted true justice and fairness. He wanted the other men to be reasonable and to look at other outcomes that could possibly not make the boy guilty. The architect was very effective, some of the traits he displayed were creativity, desire to lead, fair-mindedness, rapid information processing, self-confidence, trustworthy, and a democratic leader. His leadership style was a democratic leader because he allowed others to participate in the decision making rather than talking over them. A democratic leader participates with the group in deliberating and decision making members are empowered to actively participate. That is how it took place in the film, all twelve men had a say in everything, and participated. The architect was very inspiring and influential, he made other really think. As a result, they did display characteristics of a successful …show more content…
They showed decision by group meaning that the majority will win. There was many times in the movie in which the men were constantly voting on the faith of the young man. There was also group diversity by bringing twelve people from different ways of living to bond and compromise on a decision. These people were and are in different living conditions. Also how they were raised during their childhood made a difference in their decision making. There was many perspectives on coming up with their decision. In order to come up with a decision at the end they all had to communicate and understand each other. The movie showed a very good example of a problem solving
This report is on a movie called, “12 Angry Men.” The movie is about 12 men that are the jury for a case where a young man is being accused of killing his father. A major conflict that is very obvious is the disagreement on whether the young boy was guilty or innocent. After court when all of the men sat down to begin their discussion Courtney B. Vance (#1) Took charge and respectfully was now the leader. He asked what everyone’s votes were and all of the men except for Jack Lemmon (#8) voted the young man was guilty. Because Jack was the odd one that chose differently than the rest of the men, all of the other Jures, were defensive about the evidence just because they were all so confused.
Reasonable doubt is defined “as uncertainty as to the guilt of a criminal defendant.” This ideology has been the basis for justice systems in many modern countries for centuries. A panel of twelve men and women who have the immense responsibility of choosing the fate for one person. This principle is the basis for Reginald Rose’s satire, Twelve Angry Men. A play that describes the scene of a New York jury room, where twelve men have to decide between life and death for a inner-city teen, charged with killing his father. These jurors have to sift through the facts and the fiction to uncover the truth about the case and some truths about themselves. Reginald Rose outlines through the actions of juror number three, that no matter the consequences,
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.
For instance, the characters had to use the proper reasoning of understand to begin to understand one another. The 8th juror began to try and have the other 11 jurors for the sake of the boy’s life to talk the case out (12). He need the others to not just make a quick decision on a young man’s life and look at him other than just his background and what he looks like. After time he began to get the jurors to start bring in facts of world reason to...
The Twelve Angry Men was about a boy who was accused of stabbing his father to death in a argument. In the beginning of the trial all twelve of the juror's voted guilty. Many of the juror's were mean and did not care about the boy's future they just wanted to get the trial over with so the juror's can do what they wanted to do. Later in the case one of the juror's realized they were messing with a boys life and his future was all up to them. So a juror realized that some of the information that a witness brought up had to be false. So they analyzed the information and came to the conclusion that the boy could not have stabbed his father the way he did because one of the juror's had seen many knife fight's in his backyard and you can not stab someone downward with a switchblade. Also another witness said that the knife that the kid had could be bought anywhere. The juror's discriminated the boy because he lived in the slums , he has a criminal record and he was always fighting with his dad so they just assumed he was the one that killed his dad.
In the play, 12 Angry Men, written by the well-known writer and producer, Reginald Rose, sets the scene in a stuffy jury room on an extremely hot day where 12 jurors must deem whether a boy is guilty for the murder of his father. The jurors struggle to reach a unanimous decision, as tension between the jurors builds up. The author delivers several clear messages through his play such as standing up for what you believe in, and always pursuing the truth. Often times personal feelings, prejudices, and fear of voicing opinions prevent the truth from being exposed.
The play, ‘Twelve Angry men’, written by Reginald Rose, explores the thrilling story of how twelve different orientated jurors express their perceptions towards a delinquent crime, allegedly committed by a black, sixteen-year-old. Throughout the duration of the play, we witness how the juror’s background ordeals and presumptuous assumptions influence the way they conceptualise the whole testimony itself.
In the play “Twelve Angry men”, the story line presents a variety of perspectives and opinions between twelve very different men. Some are more likely to be pointed out as prejudice, and others are more focused on reaching fair justice. Clearly, it is quite difficult for different people to vote ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ in unity when coming to a fair decision. In all of the twelve jurors, I have chosen Juror 3 and Juror 8 for contrast and comparison. I believe that Juror number 3 is a very opinionated man, with more differences than similarities comparing with Juror number 8.
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.
In Reginald Rose’s play, Twelve Angry Men, 12 jurors had to determine if a 16-year-old boy is guilty of killing his own father or not. eleventh juror says, “We have a responsibility. This is a remarkable thing about democracy… That we are notified by mail to come down to this place and decide on the guilt or innocence of a man we have not known before. We have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict.
Juror #3: In many ways, he is the opponent to the basically composed Juror #8. Juror #3 talks about the simplicity of the case and the obvious guilt of the defendant as soon as he enters the jury room. He loses his temper easily and flies off the handle when Juror #8 and other jurors disagree with his opinions. He believes that the defendant is absolutely guilty until the conclusion of the movie. His poor relationship with his own son may have been a factor in his resistance to the reasonable doubt issues that were brought up. During his last outburst of the movie, he throws his notebook on the table and a picture of he and his son falls out. Extremely distressed, he begins to cry and tears the photo to pieces. Only when he comes to terms with this burden can he finally admit to reasonable doubt and vote not guilty.
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
When deciding what movie to do for this particular paper I faced a few issues. I knew what the requirements were, but I wanted something different and something I could have fun watching and writing as well. So, after looking around and pondering movies for weeks I finally decided on a perfect choice The 60’s directed by Mark Piznarski?
Twelve Angry Men is a play written by Reginald Rose concerning the jury of a murder trial. It is centred around a debate of wether the accused is guilty or not guilty of murdering his father. Initially, 11 out of the 12 jurors deem him as guilty, however the 8th votes
A jury's duty is to determine whether or not there is enough reasonable doubt in the evidence presented by the prosecution. The play, "Twelve Angry Men" by Reginald Rose, explores the process the jury takes to come to a unanimous decision. The number of overlooked details plants reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds. They tackle the flaws in the evidence and testimonies given against the defendant on