12 Angry Men: Judging A Book By Its Cover

1011 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Analysis of 12 angry men

Judging a Book by its Cover Why was did it seem so easy to sentence a boy’s life to death? Sure, he was accused of murder, but this is death they were talking about. Did the occupants in the room really care about the truth, or were they just eager to get out of the hot, clammy room. Most people in the room thought the boy was guilty. Juror #8 raised the question, “Why do you think he is guilty?” Instantly, one saw the effects that groupthink was taking on this collection of impatient people. Juror #8 saw the situation differently, however. In the film, 12 Angry Men, people’s true colors were really brought out–whether that be rage, racism, or selfishness. The beautiful thing about the film was that it only took one voice to make a change–to save a life. If Juror #6 would have been a muscular, black male who made his living …show more content…

What the jurors did not know what that Juror #6 was going to be a vital piece in wrapping this case up. A jury is a place of strangers–so why underestimate someone solely based on their looks? The person who looks the most beaten down may end up having all of the answers needed to solve the puzzle. This is case, Juror #6 is overlooked by most of the men–he is dirty, not saying a word, and just a truck driver. Over half of the men do not think he is relevant. This changes the entire feel of the room–at least for Juror #6. Chills run up and down his spine because he is in a room full of white men–white men who seem to think they are better than him. Juror #6 was afraid to even speak in front of these intimidating men. However, Juror #8 wanted to hear what he had to say. It seemed like Juror #6 was building up something excellent inside; however, he was afraid the other men

Show More
Related

  • Analytical Essay On 12 Angry Men

    639 Words  | 2 Pages

    For example, the third juror states in his monologue “Yeah, well I've got one. He's twenty. We did everything for that boy… When he was sixteen we had a battle. He hit me in the face. He's big, y'know. I haven't seen him in two years. Rotten kid.”(page 18) This quote alone proves that juror number eight

    Read More

  • Comparing The Rodney King Trial And The Play Twelve Angry Men

    1369 Words  | 3 Pages

    Juror Five came from the bottom and knows what it’s like. No matter how hard he tried he will always know the feeling of being on the bottom. and at some point he will always be reminded “I used to play in a backyard full of garbage, maybe it still smells on me”(7). Juror Five knows who he is and what he stands for. Now, how he would vote on the Rodney King case I can honestly say that, I don't really know.

    Read More

  • Uncertainty In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

    980 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Analysis of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men

    617 Words  | 2 Pages

    Juror #3 is very biased against the 19-year-old boy that is being tried, and this affects all of his thoughts and actions regarding the case. He has this bias because his own son hit him in the jaw and ran away from home at the age of 15: “I’ve got a kid…when he was fifteen he hit me in the face…I haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids! You work your heart out [but it’s no use] (21).”According to this quote from the text, this juror condemns all teenagers and feels resentment towards them. He especially feels strongly about the boy being tried, because the boy grew up in the slums, and this juror is also biased against these people who grew up there. It is because of these feelings that he is strongly cemented in his vote of guilty.

    Read More

  • Prejudice in 12 Angry Men

    1000 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Intolerance And Prejudice In The Play Twelve Angry Men

    1285 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men

    844 Words  | 2 Pages

    He based his guilty verdict on the logical information provided in the courtroom. He continued to feel this way until later in the movie when he changed his appeal to pathos. The decision to change his mind was caused by the other jurors starting to change their minds. As the one juror that felt the boy was innocent continued to try and convince the others that there was a chance that they could all be wrong, most of the jurors were starting to see the possibility. Every time there was a new reason why he could be innocent, each juror had more to think about.

    Read More

  • Criminal Justice Concepts in 12 Angry Men

    910 Words  | 2 Pages

    Yet with the help of one aged yet wise and optimistic man he speaks his opinion, one that starts to not change however open the minds of the other eleven men on the jury. By doing this the man puts out a visual picture by verbally expressing the facts discussed during the trial, he uses props from the room and other items the he himself brought with him during the course of the trial. Once expressed the gentleman essentially demonstrate that perhaps this young man on trial May or may not be guilty. Which goes to show the lack of research, and misused information that was used in the benefit of the prosecution. For example when a certain factor was brought upon the trail; that being timing, whether or not it took the neighbor 15 seconds to run from his chair all the way to the door. By proving this right or wrong this man Juror #4 put on a demonstration, but first he made sure his notes were correct with the other 11 jurors. After it was

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Courage Analysis

    1026 Words  | 3 Pages

    From the very beginning of 12 Angry Men, we are shown a jury unevenly divided, eleven of the men voting for guilty, and one voting for not guilty. This

    Read More

  • Use of Persuasive Argument in 12 Angry Men

    1024 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Comparing and Contrasting Juror 3 and Juror 8 from Twelve Angry Men

    1056 Words  | 3 Pages

    These two jurors are almost the plain opposite of each other. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant man accustomed of forcing his wishes and views upon others. On the other hand, Juror 8 is an honest man who keeps an open mind for both evidence and reasonable doubt. Since these two people are indeed very different, they both have singular thoughts relating to the murder case. Juror 8 is a man who is loyal to justice. In the beginning of the play, he was the only one to vote ‘not guilty’ the first time the twelve men called a vote. Although his personality is reflected on being a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man, he is still a very persistent person who will fight for justice to be done. Juror 8 is a convincing man who presents his arguments well, but can also be seen as manipulative. An example would be when he kept provoking Juror 3 until he finally said “I’m going to kill you" to Juror 8. He did this because he wanted to prove that saying "I’ll kill you" doesn’t necessarily mean that Juror 3 was actually going to kill him. Juror 3 is a totally different character. He is a stubborn man who can be detected with a streak of sad...

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men: The Gladding Model Of Group Stages

    1943 Words  | 4 Pages

    There were changes in behaviors, as the gentlemen became more responsive and nicer towards one another. This was evident when a few of the jurors helped on another put their coats on or even when some of the group members introduce themselves before exiting the building. The closing phase was also present as the men were walking out the building down the stairs. The older juror aske #8 juror what his name was, after being impressed with how he handled himself throughout the entire case and how he eventually emerged as the

    Read More

  • Juror's Injustice In 12 Angry Men

    744 Words  | 2 Pages

    Juror 10 spoke of his prejudices by stating a fallacy of composition (Pope 2003) that he had lived his whole life amongst people like the accused and assumed he knew exactly the kind of people they all were. After being confronted the first time, Juror 10 still held onto his prejudice opinions as a means to his guilty verdict. It wasn’t until the near ending of the film that Juror 10’s prejudices became evident to himself. This is the second incident that happened after the vote where 9 jurors voted not guilty and 3 voted guilty. It happened during his speech about the defendant and the ‘dishonest’ people from the slums, how they don’t value life and how murdering someone is more of a sport to them.

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men

    1821 Words  | 4 Pages

    I’ll tell you we were lucky to get a murder case.” (pg8) His comments show complete and utter disregard for the enormity of the job they were selected for. Juror 12 thinks of the trial as nothing more than a dramatized tv show rather than real life. The lack of maturity is stunning, but unsurprising in the world.

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men

    992 Words  | 2 Pages

    As the appointed foreman, his task was to orchestrate the jury’s decision-making process. He also embodied the social maintenance role of gatekeeper when he encouraged positive communication. He accomplished this by suggesting first that each juror take a turn to speak around the table, then to take an anonymous vote to protect the privacy of the jurors. The 5th juror became the information provider when he offered his specialized knowledge on switchblade use and his life in the slums. Juror #8 is the questioner because he encouraged the other jurors to consider different views of the trial and to put themselves the boy’s situation.

    Read More

More about 12 Angry Men: Judging A Book By Its Cover

Open Document