'Guilty In 12 Angry Men'

436 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Legal system and society

People can be dangerous, show a poor attitude but, people don’t know their own personal feeling. People can make mistake and make guilty for something they never did. In purpose, it is a crash course in those passage of the Constitution that promise defends a fair trial and the presumption of innocent. We hear neither prosecutor nor defense attorney, and learn of the evidence only second hand, as the jurors debate it. Most courtroom movies feel it necessary to end with a clear cut direct. But “12 Angry Men”, never states whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. A 12 man jury is sent to begin deliberations in the first – degree murder trial of an 18 years old man accused in the stabling death of his, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. The difficulties encountered in the process, among a group of men whose range of personalities adds intensity and conflict. It is immediately apparent that the jurors have already decided that the boy is guilty and they plan to return their verdict without talking and discussion. In contrast, juror Henry Fonda who is the only not guilty vote in a preliminary tally. His vote annoys the other jurors, specially juror Jack Warden who has to see a baseball game that evening, just did not mind about the future of the kid. And juror Ed Begley who believes that people from slum backgrounds are liars, wild and dangerous. …show more content…

This is a film where tension comes from personality conflict, dialogue, and where the defendants has been glimpsed only in a single brief shit, where logic, emotion and prejudice struggle to control the

Show More
Related

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

    1039 Words  | 3 Pages

    Not able to remember much about this particular part of the movie, I believe this introductory scene's purpose was to either enhance the realism of the setting by emphasizing the court building's efficient, business like manner or to provide a timeslot in which to roll the credits for producer, director, stars, etc. The settings aren't only built upon through the use of scenery and extras in the movie. Invisible and distant in the play, we see in the movie the judge, bailiff, those witnessing the trial and most importantly of all- the defendant. This is an important change because in the case, we are free to come up with our own unbiased conclusions as to the nature and identity of the defendant, whom we only know to be a 19 year boy from the slums. Seeing his haggard and worn face in the movie changes all of that, yet for better or worse, it engages the audience deeper into the trial as they surely will sympathize with him and can gain some insight into why, later, Juror 8 does so as well.

    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

  • Justice was Served in the Film Twelve Angry Men

    386 Words  | 1 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Stereotypes In The Play '12 Angry Men' By Reginald Rose

    911 Words  | 2 Pages

    This conveyed the central messages better than the play because in the play you had to envision in your mind (with a bit of imagination) the scene and the juror. In the movie, you could clearly see the situation and actors laid out for you. The actors were able to pack a punch and help you really experience the situation first-hand. People in their everyday lives, face peer pressure and often follow the crowd. It just takes one person to make a difference. It’s easier to stand along side one person rather than alone. By demonstrating the courage to do so you will also earn the respect of others around you. Its important to respect people for who they are in the present, and not who they were in the

    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

  • Juror 3 Is Guilty In Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose

    850 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    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

    The personality of the character played by Henry Fonda affected the way things played out because he was analyzing all of the evidence and the whole situation. The character played by Henry Fonda, was an architect. In the first initial vote, he was the only one who voted not guilty. This juror which was #8, made sure that they went over all of the evidence and eye wi...

    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

    This movie goes to show how such crucial facts and minuet evidence if not processed fully and clearly can change the outcome in such a big way. In this jury you have 12 men from all different walks of life, 12 different times, and 12 different personalities. Who have an obligation to come to one conclusion and that's whether or not the young man on trial is guilty of murdering his father or is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Under much frustration and lack of patience these 12 men began to get unruly and unfocused. Throughout this distraction key terms get misused, facts get turned around and more importantly emotions start to cross making it hard for these men to produce a verdict.

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Consensus Analysis

    1168 Words  | 3 Pages

    Twelve Angry Men is a depiction of twelve jurors who deliberate over the verdict of a young defendant accused of murder, highlighting many key communications concepts discussed throughout the semester. One of these concepts was the perspective of a true consensus, the complete satisfaction of a decision by all parties attributed. An array of inferences were illustrated in the movie (some spawning collective inferences) as well as defiance among the jurors. Each of these concepts play a role endorsing, or emphasizing the other. We can analyze the final verdict of the jurors and establish if there was a true consensus affecting their decision. In turn, we can analyze the inferences during the deliberation and directly link how they affect the consensus (or lack thereof). Defiance among the jurors was also directly

    Read More

  • Use of Persuasive Argument in 12 Angry Men

    1024 Words  | 3 Pages

    ... 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.

    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

  • Movie Analysis: Film Analysis Of 12 Angry Men

    1670 Words  | 4 Pages

    The story as a whole was inspired by Reginald Rose’s experience of jury duty in New York City. At first he was reluctant to serve on the jury, but he ended up telling in a press meet “ The Moment I Walked into the courtroom and found myself facing a strange man, whose fate is suddenly more or less in my hands, my entire attitude changed.” The words from Rose showed the pressure he faced inside the courtroom and his personal conscience he had not to make a mistake with the decision. The overview of the story is an engrossing drama in which eleven jurors believe the accused is guilty,

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men: Theoretical Analysis

    1016 Words  | 3 Pages

    Theories Applied to 12 Angry Men When 12 men are trapped into a room for a debate is when the exact definition of a small group of communication is at a rise. The debate, furthermore, is about convicting a young boy, with his life ahead of him, for a murder. The little boy, in which, if found guilty would have a death sentence. The day would be much easier and the verdict would be quicker, if all the men looked at the surface evidence and put a vote in as guilty.

    Read More

More about 'Guilty In 12 Angry Men'

Open Document