“To say that a man is capable of murder does not mean that he has committed murder.” Juror eleven argues. In the play, Twelve Angry Men, a nineteen-year-old boy is accused of murdering his own father with a switchblade knife. The boy accused of the murder had two eyewitnesses, and they both had testimonies. Later, the juror's discussion further proves both the old man’s and woman's testimony to be incorrect. The jurors did make the right choice by reaching a verdict of not guilty. The old man’s testimony was proven to be incorrect and false. The old man was the boy's downstairs neighbor and was called to give his testimony about the murder. He later claimed that he saw the boy fleeing from the murder scene. In the play, Twelve Angry Men, the jury yelled, “Thirty-nine seconds. …show more content…
Along with this, Juror four stated, “And the old cripple swore, on his oath, that it was fifteen” (2.1.42). This goes to show that the old man lied in his testimony. The reenactment showed that the old man could not possibly have seen the boy at the time he said he did due to his mobility issues. You may wonder, why would someone lie about something like that? Rhetorical Question - What is a Rhetorical Question? One reason the old man may have lied was because he felt lonely and wanted to be heard, so he made something up. Some could say the old man was like Pinocchio. The symphony of the symphony. As well as the old man, the woman's testimony was proven to be incorrect. The woman lived across the elk tracks and had known the defendant since he was a little boy. She was called to give her testimony about what happened. She claimed that she saw the boy kill his father while an el train was roaring past at the speed of light. The. In the play, Twelve Angry Men, juror eight argued, “She couldn’t have had time to put on her glasses then” (3.1.61,
This essay will compare and contrast the protagonist/antagonist's relationship with each other and the other jurors in the play and in the movie versions of Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men. There aren't any changes made to the key part of the story, but yet the minor changes made in making the movie adaptation produce a different picture than what one imagines when reading the drama in the form of a play. First off, the settings in the movie are a great deal more fleshed out. In the play, the scene begins with the jurors regarding the judge's final statements concerning the case in the courtroom and then walking out into the jury room. In the movie, the audience is placed in the role of the invisible casual observer, who for perhaps the first 5 minutes of the movie, walks throughout the court building passing other court rooms, lawyers, defendants, security officers, elevators, etc.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 the very start of 12 Angry Men the judge states, “If there is reasonable doubt in your mind as to the guilt of the accused… then you must declare him not guilty. If, however, there is no reasonable doubt, then he must be found guilty.” (Rose 312). Many of the men do not follow this requirement by being stubborn and by not wanted to listen to other opinions. Another time reasonable doubt was present, and some jurors decided not to listen, was about the knife used to kill the father. Many of the jurors were convinced that the cashier was telling the truth about only having one knife, but Juror Eight proves them wrong by showing the exact same knife sold at the same store. Juror Eight proves there is reasonable doubt by doing this, but many of the men refuse to believe it. Reasonable doubt was present so many times in the play, yet many of the men chose not to listen to all of the
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
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 Twelve Angry Men, a boy is on trial for supposedly murdering his father after a night of arguing. Rodney King, twenty-five, was beaten by four caucasian Los Angeles Police Department officers on March 3, 1991 (CNN Wire 1). On this day, King was pulled over for exceeding the speed limit while intoxicated (Kaplan 1). The jury of both of these cases played a major role in the verdict of each case. In the play Twelve Angry Men, the twelve men that make up the jury are faced with a difficult decision to make; deciding whether or not a nineteen year old boy was guilty of murder. Fast forwarding forty-three years later, twelve jurors were given the Rodney King case in which they had to decide the fate of the four Los Angeles officers that brutally beat Rodney King, an African-American citizen. Being a member of the jury on the Rodney King case must have been a difficult task given the evidence surrounding the trial.
The play 12 Angry Men is about 12 jury members tasked with deciding if a boy is guilty of the murder of his father or if there is reasonable doubt about the boy being the killer. If the verdict is guilty, then the boy will face the death penalty. In the beginning, all but one of the men thinks the boy is guilty. Many just take the evidence at face value. Some of the jurors have their own views.
Stormy, rain-filled nights, ear-splitting passing elephant trains, ominous nighttime noises, individuals frightfully screaming, and birds swooping into the sky are the descriptions that create a terrifying night. Murder: the premeditated killing of one human being by another. The act of crime that will determine the fate of the killer. In the movie 12 Angry Men, viewers examine the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. Twelve diverse citizens are pulled from their daily lives, dressed in button-up shirts and dapper ties, and are summoned to decide the fate of a young boy, either proving him to be ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’, over the murder of his father.
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
OB ASSIGNMENT 12 ANGRY MEN 1) SUMMARY OF THE MOVIE: The movie is an American drama film that tells the story of a jury composed of 12 men that deliberates the guilt or acquittal of a defendant on the basis of doubt of reasonable extent. The 12 jurors are unique personalities from different fields of work and personalities. The movie starts with a court scene with the judge advising the jury the details of the case and that the verdict of then jury has the ability to save or kill a man’s life. He ends his talk with a condition that it must be an all or none verdict of the jury in either the case of guilty or not guilty.