Argumentative Essay On 12 Angry Men

603 Words2 Pages

Juror 11 says: ‘Facts may be coloured by the personalities of the people who present them’. Is he right? Pre Essay Questions: • Do you agree or disagree? I agree. • I agree because the evidence that was offered contained personal factors that persuaded the decisions of the jurors. • What are the main words or phrases that must be addressed to answer the topic? Evidence, personalities, facts, and fancy. • Which side has more or the most convincing evidence? For. Intro: • 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

Show More
Related

  • Compare and Contrast Play and Movie Versions of 12 Angry Men

    1039 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Civic Responsibility In Twelve Angry Men, By Reginald Rose

    531 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Ignorance in 12 Angry Men

    709 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Uncertainty In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

    980 Words  | 2 Pages

    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,

    Read More

  • Analysis of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men

    617 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Prejudice in 12 Angry Men

    1000 Words  | 2 Pages

    ... I've lived among them all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that. I mean, they're born liars.” In this statement you can clearly tell his prejudice against the kid, just because of where he was raised. Juror # 10 and juror # 3 has prejudice against the kid. Juror # 3 has personal experience with a kid like the accused. “Reminded of his own family's personal crisis, Juror # 3 tells the jurors of his own disrespectful, teen aged boy who hit him on the jaw when he was 16. Now 22 years old, the boy hasn't been seen for two years, and the juror is embittered: "Kids! Ya work your heart out."” This is a direct example of juror # 3’s prejudice against the accused. When prejudice was in effect in the movie, it clouded the judgments of the jurors that were prejudice against the boy just because he was raised in the slums.

    Read More

  • Intolerance And Prejudice In The Play Twelve Angry Men

    1285 Words  | 3 Pages

    The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “You 're not going to tell us that we 're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I 've lived among 'em all my life. You can 't believe a word they say. I mean, they 're born liars.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground

    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

  • To Kill A Mocking Bird

    722 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    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

  • Disgust and Juror Decision-Making

    981 Words  | 2 Pages

    Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62 (2), 189-206.

    Read More

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

    1056 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Role Of Justice In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

    1441 Words  | 3 Pages

    Yet, the justice system is inevitably susceptible to a flaw, as personal prejudices slip through the initial screening and become apparent in the jury room. In Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men the jury systems imperfections are addressed. He demonstrates the atmosphere of the jury room by introducing twelve characters with unique personalities. A particular character I believe to stand out from the rest would be juror ten. Upon first glance, he comes across as a bigot, but as the play continues he exhibits he is also impatient, arrogant, cantankerous and several other traits.

    Read More

  • Jury Case Study

    1472 Words  | 3 Pages

    Pennington and Hastie (1992) found that when jurors were presented with the evidence in a chronological manner, they were much more likely to find the defendant guilty than when this evidence was given in a discrepant and non-structured way. This led them to propose a story model which is believed to be widely used by jurors to make sure they evaluated all the evidence in a strategic and sensible way. The model consists of creating a narrative based on a careful evaluation of all the collected evidence to assure that the jurors fully comprehend the case. This appears like a fairly reliable system to assess a crime. So why so much controversy? Yet again we should remind ourselves that jurors are untrained laypeople and as laypeople they do not always use the most systematic way of approaching incoming information. This might for example occur when the presented information is out of the jurors’ expertise and they are having hard time making estimations about the extent of a crime; in that case they are more likely to rely on heuristic processing (Bornstein & Greene, 2011). This is quite a rapid and automatic process enabling people to use shortcuts that help them to understand the issue better. When using this technique, jurors are more likely to attend to the peripheral cues, such as the confidence of an eyewitness, credibility of an expert,

    Read More

  • Analysis Of The Negotiation Process In 12 Angry Men

    1170 Words  | 3 Pages

    Juror 8 utilized emotional intelligence in relating to the other 11 jurors and effectively influencing them to change their votes. Emotional intelligence is defined by Psychology Today as the "ability to identify and manage your own emotions and the emotions of others" ("Emotional Intelligence," n.d.). Using emotional intelligence, juror 8 maintained his own emotions and remained calm. He also used emotional intelligence to draw out the emotions in others, which ultimately led to influencing the jurors by creating doubts in their minds regarding the verdict. In "Minority Matters," the authors point out that juror 8 "senses that juror 3 is losing credibility with the others as well as his temper" (Flouri & Fitsakis, 2007, p. 459). Juror 8 began to antagonize juror 3, pushing him to angrily yell that he will kill juror 8. In response, juror 8 stated, "You don 't really mean that" (Flouri & Fitsakis, 2007, p. 459). Juror 8 used juror 3 's emotional outburst to prove the statement could be made without following through on the action. The results of this action caused juror 8 to gain more credibility and also more votes for not

    Read More

More about Argumentative Essay On 12 Angry Men

Open Document