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 …show more content…
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 …show more content…
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
At the beginning of “12 Angry Men” the judge says to the jury “One man is dead, the life of another is at stake. I urge you to deliberate thoughtfully and honestly,” this is putting the verdict completely on the jury. If any reasonable doubt is at hand they jury must confirm a verdict of not guilty.
As a juror in any court case it would be difficult to come to one conclusion with twelve different opinions. The fictional play Twelve Angry Men proved this to be true, however, the jurors in the Sandusky trial found it relatively easy to decide on a verdict. Jerry Sandusky, former Penn State assistant football coach and founder of the 2nd Mile charity, was convicted of fifty-two accounts of child molestation. Although members of the jury would like to discuss every aspect of the case, in the end, convicting Sandusky guilty would be a simple task.
Twelve Angry Men exhibits the thought processes of twelve men that rely upon their intuitions on varying levels; some of whom check their intuition, some dismiss their intuition, and some trust it blindly. Of course, absolutism in either direction is not wise, and, in almost any case, moderation will find better results, especially in a court room. Throughout the film, various characters utilize one of these false ways of thought. However, it was characters like Juror Eight, that checked his intuition that saved the accused boy from the death penalty. This shows the power of taking your intuition in moderation and the beneficial nature that can result from doing so.
The movie, 12 Angry Men is about twelve white men deciding the jail sentence of an 18-year old boy who has allegedly committed murder by stabbing his father. The men must decide if the boy is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt awaiting a death sentence by electric chair. The first scene of the movie is the jurors waling into one room and Juror number 1(foreman) is seen leader of the deliberation. He tells the jurors to gather around a table and explains that the goal of the deliberation is to vote on the sentence of a boy’s guiltiness and innocence. After no deliberation at first, everyone quickly unanimously votes guilty. Everyone except one juror; who explains the reason why he couldn’t cast his vote guilty was because he couldn’t decide such
...the facts of the case. If not for Juror number 8’s determination to uphold his values at the risk of being “unpopular” among the other eleven jurors, a young man would have been wrongfully sentenced for a crime did not commit. It is easy to see the potential for disastrous consequences if a jury allows personal bias and peer-pressure to overwhelm their own critical thinking skills and moral compass in making life altering decisions.
At the start of the jury deliberations, Juror #1, Martin Balsam, the amicable jury foreman, wanted to achieve the goal of keeping the jury proceedings in order. He suggested a preliminary vote and six of the jurors - numbers 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, and 12 - quickly put their hands up to vote “guilty”. Then due to peer pressure, jurors numbered 2, 5, 6, 9 and 11 hesitantly joined them in voting “guilty”. Only Juror # 8 opposed them stating that he was uncertain whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty - he was not convinced that the prosecution proved that the accused was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
There are many issues with the jurors in a case having a preconceived opinion of a certain group of people or about the suspect or the crime itself. The people whose lives are at stake will, as a result, not receive a fair hearing. This is a serious obstacle in issuing the proper punishments or deciding whether a suspect is innocent or guilty in a case. In the most serious cases, someone could be unrightfully pegged as guilty or an extremely dangerous criminal could be released without any consequence, and the ability to repeat the exact same crime. The short play, 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, was set in the late summer of 1954 and focuses on twelve jurors arguing whether a boy murdered his own father.
We hear many discuss how the case is open and shut, preconceived notions about the accused and that more than one juror wants to get it over with as quickly as possible. The first vote for a verdict is taken and while some hesitate to raise their hand, all but one votes guilty. Davis is the only one to raise his hand for not guilty. When men question, make a few snide comments and ask if he really believes he’s not guilty he simply states, “ I don’t know.” In the conversation that follows he admits it wasn’t easy to raise his hand for not guilty but it’s not easy to send the boy off to die without talking about it. He further states to juror #7 I am not trying to change your mind. This is an excellent choice of words that in many ways set the tone for everything that followed. He is not confrontational, doesn’t say I’m right and you are wrong but simply asks for a
Ever wonder why the play “Twelve Angry Men” is such a good classic. It’s because prejudice is the major plot. and everyone has to go through prejudice in their lives from their backstory and preferences and go with their gut that is only based on opinion. And quite frankly that’s how this play’s conflicts appear and get solved by being unbiased and using empathy.
From the start everyone is talking to him and he is always one of the jurors who tries to convince those who are in favor of a conviction. He doesn’t back down and his character develops throughout the text, at the start he is timid and by the end he is confident. In addition, it is always juror eight who introduces new ideas that carry the conversation forward. If there was no juror eight, the outcome would have been guilty, simply because he was who convinced everyone that there was a reasonable doubt. There wouldn’t have been a story to tell because no one would have stood up, meaning that juror eight was the cause for this play, which is a sign that he would be the
A few of the men changed their vote and the vote went from eleven thinking guilty to now be that nine men were voting guilty. The argument from the architect showed that he was a very intelligent, caring man who believed what he thought was right and that he wouldn’t change his mind just because some of the men were growing angry at him for thinking differently. The architect even went as far as doing his own investigating on the case to check out the crime scene and playing out the facts as they were told in court. Eventually, as time goes on the architect starts getting other jurors to be on the same page as him and they too started to think harder on the
The 1957 film “12 Angry Men” is about a twelve-person jury attempting to decide the fate of a young boy who is accused of stabbing his father. Packed in a hot, small deliberation room, constant conflict and tension amounts between the twelve-jury members. Most of this is due to the fact each of these jury members have their own personal biases and perceptions of the case. While it could be considered a negative, this seems to be one of the main purposes of having a twelve-person jury. With having a twelve-person jury it can bring about certain disadvantages, but a clear advantage is that these jury members have their own background, experiences and views that ultimately can help to bring attention to certain details that other jury members
Twelve Angry Men, by Emmy Award winning author Reginald Rose, is a play set in the 19th century, were twelve opinionated and impatient jurors are forced to decide whether a nineteen year old boy is guilty of murdering his father. These men must get over various obstacles that block them from the truth. In writing this play, Mr. Reginald Rose gives us a clear message- we must never be blinded by personal prejudice or racial bias. Jurors Eight, Three, and Ten can fully prove that.
12 Angry Men is one of the best plays I have read so far, the humor and the sense of mystery captivates readers into reading more of the play. So far, as I have finished reading Act 1 of the play the readers have learned that twelve jurors must deliberate a murder case ultimately deciding the fate of one 18 year boy to be sent to the electric chair. The trial so far has taken six days far too many for some of the impatient jurors. The evidence of guilt seems overwhelming but Juror #8 thinks otherwise he believes that maybe the boy could be innocent and votes not guilty during the first vote. At first, Juror #8 says he just wants to talk for a while about the verdict. He brings up certain details of the case that have been bothering him, but
Davis (Juror #8) was an individual who cares about justice and who was willing to stand up against a crowd to do the right thing for another individual despite his mistakes. In the beginning of the movie he came off "as very soft spoken but throughout the movie he changes that. There were eleven votes for guilty. Juror 8 was the only opposing vote. Juror #8 believes that the defendant deserves a little empathy and believed that he could influenced that to the other jurors. I believe that Juror #8 was the knowledgeable juror of the 12 jurors on the case. Juror #8's arguments was not catching the attention of the other jurors