In the play Twelve Angry Men, the jury discusses whether or not a young man is guilty of first degree murder at the expense of the death penalty. Towards the beginning of the play the evidence appears convincing of a guilty verdict, but as it progresses newer theories suggest otherwise. The jurors intensely debate and inspect each piece of evidence in order to approach the unanimous and proper decision of not guilty. Both of the prosecution's strongest pieces of evidence were refuted once carefully examined, making them invalid. The woman across the tracks’ visual witness for the murder was proved invalid after the jury concluded she was not wearing her glasses and could not have seen clearly enough to identify the murderer. The coroner identified that the wound was created by an overhand stab, which only …show more content…
As the jury discusses the credibility of the woman’s testimony, they have a revelation about the evidence from the stab wound. If the defendant were truly dedicated to killing his father, he would have planned the murder down to the correct way of handling the knife. The corner examined the stab wound to determine that it was created from a downward stabbing position. The defendant had a criminal background that made him appear to be a well trained knife fighter, so if he were the murderer, why would he make an uneducated error? (Rhetorical Question) Juror eight exclaims, “To murder someone must take great emotion, great hatred. And at that moment he would handle the knife as best he could, and a trained knife fighter would handle it as he had been trained, underhand”(3. 1. What is the difference between a. and a. 57). The syllable of the syllable. In this excerpt, juror eight expounds on the fact that a trained knife fighter, like the defendant, would have stabbed underhanded. It would be reasonable to assume that he would have done so in a way that was efficient, like an underhanded
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 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.
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,
In the play Twelve Angry Men, a tough decision rests in the hands of twelve jurors as they discuss whether or not a minor is guilty of murdering his father. What is originally seen as a very black and white case becomes more complicated when the jurors begin to question if the evidence is enough to convict and execute a teenage boy. In particular, the author, Reginald Rose, includes a juror who unequivocally believes that the defendant is guilty. We soon find out that Juror 3 harbors a grudge against his own son, who ran away years ago. Juror 3's convictions are not fueled by the case's evidence, but instead by his want for revenge.
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.
We are all different. We are all at least biased on one topic. Some people just look at the surface, while others dig deeper into the facts that were given. Reginald Rose demonstrated these points beautifully in 12 Angry Men. All of the Jurors bring a special part of their personality to the jury room, which is the beauty of having a jury. All of the jurors are different in their own unique way,
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.
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...
I firmly believe that there is no such thing as justice. What might be justice for one person, could be injustice for the other. For instance, in the 1950’s film 12 Angry Men directed by Sidney Lumet, a 18 year old boy was accused of stabbing his father with a switch blade knife. 12 “angry” jurors had to decide the fate of a young boys life. Each man wrote down there votes, either guilty or non guilty.
According to Myers and Twenge (2013), conformity is “a change in behavior or belief as the result of real or imagined peer pressure” (p. 188). In 12 Angry Men, conformity is seen in the beginning of the film. As the jury is voting on the suspect’s verdict, there is a hesitancy from a few of the jurors. In the beginning, only a couple jurors raised their hands for “guilty”. Slowly, more and more people started raising their hands as a result of peer pressure from those around them. In the end, everyone but one person was raising their hand for “guilty”, and the vote was 11 to 1 “guilty”. This scene relates to the study of Asch’s (1955) line comparison studies of group pressure. In this study, a line of people was supposed to tell
In viewing 12 Angry Men, we see face to face exactly what man really is capable of being. We see different views, different opinions of men such as altruism, egoism, good and evil. It is no doubt that human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics, which make them unique. It is safe to say that our actions, beliefs, and choices separate us from animals and non-livings. The 20th century English philosopher, Martin Hollis, once said, “Free will – the ability to make decisions about how to act – is what distinguishes people from non-human animals and machines 1”. He went to describe human beings as “self conscious, rational, creative. We can fall in love, write sonnets or plan for tomorrow. We are capable of faith, hope and charity, and for that matter, of envy, hated and malice. We know truth from error, right from wrong 2.” Human nature by definition is “Characteristics or qualities that make human beings different from anything else”. With this said, the topic of human nature has been around for a very long time, it is a complex subject with no right or wrong answer. An American rabbi, Samuel Umen, gave examples of contradictions of human nature in his book, Images of Man. “He is compassionate, generous, loving and forgiving, but also cruel, vengeful, selfish and vindictive 3”. Existentialism by definition is, “The belief that existence comes before essence, that is, that who you are is only determined by you yourself, and not merely an accident of birth”. A French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, is the most famous and influential 20th - century existentialist. He summed up human nature as “existence precedes essence”. In his book, Existentialism and Human Emotions, he explained what he meant by this. “It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will be something, and he himself will have made what he will be 4”. After watching 12 Angry Men, the prominent view on human nature that is best portrayed in the movie is that people are free to be whatever they want because as Sartre said, “people create themselves every moment of everyday according to the choices they make 5”.
How could she, his wife, betray him and kill him with no remorse? The article, “Trial Lawyers Cater to Jurors’ Demands for Visual Evidence,” written by Sylvia Hsieh, stresses the importance of visual evidence. Hsieh writes in a formal tone as she delves into a pool of various example trials used to explain visual evidence, along with specific quotes obtained from well-known lawyers and workers in the industry. This simply states the recurring idea that visual evidence is important.
The movie 12 Angry Men depicts the story of 12 men serving on a jury who must determine the destiny of a young man charged with murdering his father (Lidz, 1995). This study represents the analysis of 12 Angry Men movie by applying Tuckman's Stages, to determine if these men acted as a group or a team, as well as analyze the dynamics of this group of men as they weighed the confirmation, demonstration, and personal agendas.
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.