More handpicked essays just for you.
How is justice addressed in twelve angry men
How is justice addressed in twelve angry men
How is justice addressed in twelve angry men
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Juror Three was the main antagonist of the story and was also the last one to change his vote to “not guilty.” Throughout “Twelve Angry Men”, he was very aggressive to anyone who did not share the same opinions as him. He stated this to Juror Eight after he was called a sadist, “Shut up! {Lunges at Eight, but is caught by two of the JURORS and is held. He struggles as EIGHT watches calmly. Then he screams.} Let me go! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” Also, it was very hard for Juror Three to change his mind. We can see this in the book and the movie. Although the facts he stated were all disproven, he would go back to them. Also, it was hard for him to change his mind because of what happened between him and his son. His son had punched him good
in the chin and he never talked to Juror Three in the past two years. Through these events, he may have become prejudice towards kids. That may explain why he could not vote not guilty in the case. What do the other jurors think about him? They probably see him as an overly aggressive person. This is because throughout the whole story, Juror Three yells at the other jurors and questions what they are thinking. Also, the characters are somewhat annoyed with Juror Three. This can be seen in the discussion between a few jurors. For example, Juror Ten said, “What are we gonna do, spend time talking about your feelings? What about the facts?” This statement shows how Juror Ten is annoyed by how Juror Three thinks he is always correct, but has no evidence to prove it. Many readers and writers may think that Juror Three is always angry. This is because of the way he talks to the other jurors. This is very evident when he has to be held back from Juror 8 when he got mad at him. Also, readers and viewers may think that Juror Three is abusive. This is because he would always tell his son to man up. Through these characteristics, people reading or viewing the Twelve Angry Men would get a disgusting impression. Nobody would want to meet a person like Juror Three.
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 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.
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
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.
Mention the pros and cons of our jury system and possible alternatives of it. Also, identify the group dynamics of the jury members
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.
Juror three is angry, bitter man who has spent his entire life forcing his opinions unto others, and has most likely succeeded in this endeavor. As head of his own company, he isn’t he used to the resistence he is getting from the group. To help his arguments, he uses the phrase “know what I mean” at the end of almost everything he says, putting any juror with an opposing argument in an awkward position. As the play wears on and his reliable witnesses were called into question, and more speculation was put upon the table, he begins to become more forceful in his arguments, raising his voice much more often than usual. He firmly believes in the guilt of the accused, no matter what the other jurors say or do. There are ...
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
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...
Serving on a jury is a civic duty and an American tradition. However, some people view jury duty as a chore or as an event that negatively interrupts their lives. Some independent studies have shown that even jury duty has a devastating effect on married life. Due to this and other extraneous situations, there are only a few people who actually want to serve on a jury. This may lead to efforts by potential jurors to, in some way get out of their duty in a jury. What we know of as the current jury duty system should be changed so citizens are not forced to serve in this capacity and can still be regarded as a responsible civilian. As per the status quo, a trial jury is a constitutional right, a jury of ones peers or equals. However, ordinary people with little or no formal knowledge of the law should not be allowed to make a decision that would change a person's life.
Juror ten is perceived throughout the play as a nuisance. The reason he causes a plethora of conflict is that of his prejudiced views on the If there was no incredibly belligerent, cantankerous and impatient bigot the play would be lacking in its purpose. Reginald Rose created Twelve Angry Men not only for entertainment, but to convey that even the jury system has issues. Rose did this by creating an easily repulsive character that expressed extreme prejudice for the boy on trial.
The jurors had several conflicts in disagreeing with each other and it didn't help that they would shout over one another. The very first conflict is when juror 8 voted not guilty against the 11 guilty votes. The other 11 jurors don't seem to want to hear this man out; they don't want to hear why he has voted not guilty. Some of these men, jurors 3 and 7, just want to get this case over with so they can get on with their lives. They don't think it is imperative enough to look over the evidence and put themselves in the place of the defendant. They get upset with this man and try to get him to vote guilty.
However, juror 3 did not maintain control after discussions with juror 8. For example, when juror 8 made a personal attack on juror 3, juror 3 lost his cool, requiring restraint from the other jurors to the point of yelling, “Let me go! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” (Flouri & Fitsakis, 2007, p.459). His emotional intelligence (Budjac Corvette, 2007, p. 29) was a superior negotiation tactic throughout the deliberation process.
Juror number 3 (Lee Cobb), was absolutely certain that the boy was completely innocent and had nothing to do with the crime, the people accused him of. The reason for the third Juror Lee not thinking that the boy is guilty that he has a small boy himself, with whom he has his own problems. Meaning he can totally link this boy to his own son, because he has a lot of arguments with him at home as well. Therefore his judgment towards the boy was very different than from all of the other Jurors because he was sad about how his relationship with his son is at the moment because he had done some mistakes which he really regrets that he has done them. Seeing these scenes from the movie, you could say that this man has a very calm character, but he could get angry as well as he said that he has done a lot of mistakes he really regrets, linked with his own son.