Journalist: Good evening Mr Prichard Prichard: Good evening. (Respectfully) I would like to know about the facts and why the young boy was considered not guilty? Prichard: Your name is…? Journalist: Oh, I’m sorry. My name is George Sarton. I am a journalist reporting on the young boy’s case. After I saw this case in the newspaper 2 days ago, I had followed the date and time. Please would you give me twenty minutes of your time for an interview? Prichard: Sure. I have plenty of time. Let’s be seated. Mr Prichard and the journalist sat on a nearby table. Journalist: so Mr Prichard, what juror number were you? Prichard: I was Juror no. 4. Journalist: So, tell me about your opinions about the other jurors? Prichard: Well, to be honest, I haven’t …show more content…
How was your assumption disbelieved considering it was 12 to nothing? Prichard: After we’ve discussed what the boy claimed, Juror no. 8 argued that it was possible that the boy lost the knife and that someone else stabbed his father with a similar knife. We all went against it. Right after that juror no. 8 flicked opened the blade of another switch knife and jammed it into the table. He says he got it from a junk shop around the corner of the boy’s house which was only $6. Journalist: What was your opinion on that incident? Prichard: Well, there was no opinion. I just thought it was against the law to buy a switch blade knife. Then we called for a vote again. This time, juror no. 9 voted not guilty as well. He says no. 8 gambled for support and he gave it to him to hear more. Prichard: Then next, Juror no 12 bought up the evidence from the old man who lives on the second floor right underneath the room where the murder took place. Juror no. 8 asked us a strange question. ‘How long does it take an elevated train going at top speed to pass a given point?’ We all concluded to ten …show more content…
Juror was 8 had a very good point about how a man who’s had two strokes in the past three years, and who walks a pairs of canes, could get to his front door in fifteen seconds. He has explained the diagram as to how he got to the door from his bedroom in fifteen seconds after he heard the body fall. He has demonstrated how the old man walks and it took exactly 31 seconds. Most of jurors agreed that the old man trying to get to the door, heard someone racing down the stairs, and assumed that it was the boy. Finally when there was another vote, Juror no. 2,5,6,8,9,11 changed to not guilty which was six to
The book “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a book about twelve jurors who are trying to come to a unanimous decision about their case. One man stands alone while the others vote guilty without giving it a second thought. Throughout the book this man, the eighth juror, tries to provide a fair trial to the defendant by reviewing all the evidence. After reassessing all the evidence presented, it becomes clear that most of the men were swayed by each of their own personal experiences and prejudices. Not only was it a factor in their final decisions but it was the most influential variable when the arbitration for the defendant was finally decided.
b) Juror Five reevaluated the proper direction for that knife to be utilized. He stated that “‘[y]ou don’t use this kind of knife that way. You have to hold it like this to release the blade. In order to stab downward, you would have to change your grip.’” Juror Eight then reassured that “‘ the boy is pretty handy with a knife.’” As a result, Juror Five expressed that the boy “‘would go for him underhanded.’” (Rose 61-62). Comprehending that a switchblade knife is correctly used with an underhand and that the defendant upholds experience with knives, the person who murdered the father had to be inexperienced to utilize such an awkward angle for stabbing.
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.
make there decision, but in the end there was no way that the jury was going to believe a
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,
That just makes him guilty for another crime, and makes him a suspect for the murder because there are not many knifes like that. He also is making the other jurors uncomfortable, which will lead them to not trust him, and not change their votes to not guilty.
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. Courtney B. Vance took charge once again and calmly stated that everyone has their rights and lets have everyone explain the reasons why they thing the child is guilty or not guilty. Ossie Davis (#2) explained why he voted guilty. While explaining this he was very calm and wise. HE handled conflicts in the same way. Next was George C. Schott (#3) He also voted guilty. George was very st...
Despite knowing how angry the other men would be at him, the 8th juror stood up for the defendant and did what he could to make sure the boy had a fair trial. From the beginning, Juror eight was clearly confident in what he believed in and did not care about how foolish he looked. The confidence he showed brought the other jurors to rethink their vote. Juror nine was the first person to recognize the amount of courage it took for juror eight to stand up against the men. After being the first to change his vote nine explains “This gentleman chose to stand alone against us. That’s his right. It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone even if you believe in something very strongly. He left the verdict up to us. He gambled for support and I gave it to him. I want to hear more. The vote is ten to two.” The 9th juror agreed with the eight juror about wanting justice. By standing up for justice he gave nine the courage to stand up for the same reason. Juror eight continued to be consistent with what he believed in. Never did he
Finally, the argument about the glasses swayed everyone just enough to withdraw the guilty verdict and set the boy free. My next claim is in regards to the “old man” juror. If it were not for him voting not guilty the second time, the boy would have been found guilty. He said the reason he voted that way was because of one juror standing up to the other 11 jurors. He felt that everyone needed to hear all of the arguments because they were dealing with a man’s life.
Did I just do that? Did I just stop juror three? I can’t believe it; how did I have the nerve to do that? oh no he is going to hit me I’m sure of it. However I really liked it when I stopped him and taking charge, like I didn't know what i was doing. I rose up to the occasion and and just did it. So this is what bravery feels like I kind of liked it but I don’t think I will experiencing that feeling again any time soon. But sweet mother of jesus!! Look at his face juror three is so pissed like his face is as red as a tomato I hope he will calm down or something might happen like; I actually thought he was about to attack juror eight he was shouting and yelling at him. Good thing I wasn’t the one that started the fight with him or I would have been knocked out faster than anything.
... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.
The jurors had several conflicts in disagreeing with each other and it didn't help that they would shout over one another. The very first conflict is when juror 8 voted not guilty against the 11 guilty votes. The other 11 jurors don't seem to want to hear this man out; they don't want to hear why he has voted not guilty. Some of these men, jurors 3 and 7, just want to get this case over with so they can get on with their lives. They don't think it is imperative enough to look over the evidence and put themselves in the place of the defendant. They get upset with this man and try to get him to vote guilty.
Juror 8 's success in persuading the other 11 jurors was a direct result of his having effectively followed the stages of the negotiation process. In Conflict Management, five stages of the negotiation process were identified as preparation, introduction, initiation, intensification, and closing (Budjac Corvette, 2007). In 12 Angry Men, juror 8 utilized preparation, introduction, and intensification stages to effectively persuade the other jurors.
12 Angry men is about a group of men who are appointed as jury’s. They are put in a room until they could come up with a conclusion, on whether the boy who was convicted of murder is guilty or not.
The 1918 Ireland General Election At the 1917 Sinn Fein Party Conference, all the parties that opposed British rule in Ireland agreed on a common policy, to work for the establishment of an Irish Republic. Arthur Griffith stood down and De Valera was elected President of both Sinn Fein and later of The Irish Volunteers. Sinn Fein's opposition to compulsory conscription to The Great War greatly enhanced its popularity with the people. Compulsorary military conscription was, in fact, never introduced in Ireland. Sinn Fein promised that its elected members would not sit in the British Parliament, but would form their own government in Dublin in the forthcoming General Election in November 1918, after 'The First World War" had ended.