Human beings are so consumed by personal conflicts that they will let the matter blind them when it comes to doing what is most appropriate for society. That occurs during the film 12 Angry Men, when the jurors engage in a great civil war against one another. In the beginning, all seem to be on the same agenda; all except one. When the jury deliberations begin and the first vote is cast, 11 to 1 guilty is the outcome. Juror number eight, played by Henry Fonda, believes that there is reasonable doubt in the case and that further discussion is inevitable. Most of the jurors, especially numbers three, four and ten, contradict his beliefs and find no other way but to convict the defendant on the charge of murder. When Juror eight provides the clarification of the evidence to the rest of the members; all eventually realize the error that …show more content…
could have been made, but the idea does not become so clear to Jurors three, four and ten. Jurors three, four and ten incessantly attempt to elucidate to the rest of the jury that the defendant is in fact guilty; and in so doing realize their personal anguish and convictions and how it connects to the case at large. Juror number four, played by E.G.
Marshall, is a man who becomes easily convinced by both sides of the argument. He initially does not really comprehend the importance of the case and easily lets the rest of the jury such as numbers three, eight and ten corrupt his own opinion. He intakes all of the evidence and states that he does not believe the defendant’s alibi which will ultimately be the reasoning for his decision to vote guilty. When juror eight explicates that being under emotional stress can make the person forget certain details, he asks juror four to recall some events in the past days. Juror four does recollect the events, with some difficulty and juror eight further points out that he was not under any emotional stress when asked; thus, there was no reason to think that the defendant should be able to remember the exact elements of the movie that he had seen. Juror four does further inquire much information about the witness, however, after juror eight further examines the rest of the evidence and delivers his results to the members of the jury, juror four's convictions suddenly change to a vote of “not
guilty.” Juror number ten, played by Ed Begley, is a human-hating, selfish individual who only wants to convict the defendant and go home. He is a very disrespectful “person” as he constantly insults every member of the jury who opposes his principles. He unceasingly condemns the defendant and refers to him as “one of them.” He does become quite comical as he has a cold and hops out of his seat every five minutes to blow his nose. He continuously demands that the rest of the jury listen to him and only apprehend the knowledge that he has given to them. They all have heard enough and are forced to threaten him in order for him to keep his trout-mouthed lips shut. Juror eight additionally refines the evidence in question causing number ten along with four to change his vote to “not guilty.” Juror number three, played by Lee J. Cobb becomes increasingly passionate about his guilty verdict and pleads his case as to why the act was committed by the defendant. He surmises that there is solid and clarifying evidence that places the defendant at the same location where the murder transpired. When the jury begins alienating those who oppose their ideas of the defendant being guilty, he begins to believe that he has won the war. Juror number three holds a vendetta against the young defendant as he becomes emotionally connected to the case. This all ties back to his son, who ran away from an altercation with another individual, which obviously enraged the father. When he confronts his coward son, the confrontation turns violent when the son throws a quick jab to his father’s face, again fleeing from the scene. After he reveals his connection, he justifies that with an “all kids are guilty” response. It seems that juror number three has engaged himself in a nice long battle with hate, tying this case back to the relationship with his son, which destroys his once respectable values. He does, at last, perceive this emotion and is the final member of the jury to change his vote to “not guilty.” Jurors three, four and ten are a disgrace to human society as they let their self-interest and convictions cloud what is best for society. They almost convicted a young man of a crime that contained reasonable doubt. Their actions are morally reprehensible and that is why their plan to convict the defendant resulted in a very successful failure.
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.
From the beginning of the film, juror number eight displayed his interest in the case, not his personal engagements. His opening part by the window foreshadowed his deep concern for the defendant, an eighteen year-old Hispanic gentleman accused of stabbing his father in a fit of rage. While most of the jurors were ready to leave so as not to further interrupt their schedules, Henry Fonda was willing to give as much time as it would take to analyze this seemingly simple decision.
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.
In the play, 12 Angry Men, written by the well-known writer and producer, Reginald Rose, sets the scene in a stuffy jury room on an extremely hot day where 12 jurors must deem whether a boy is guilty for the murder of his father. The jurors struggle to reach a unanimous decision, as tension between the jurors builds up. The author delivers several clear messages through his play such as standing up for what you believe in, and always pursuing the truth. Often times personal feelings, prejudices, and fear of voicing opinions prevent the truth from being exposed.
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,
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.
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.
The film 12 Angry Men depicts the challenge faced by a jury as they deliberate the charges brought against an 18-year-old boy for the first-degree murder of his father. Their task is to come to an impartial verdict, based on the testimony that was heard in court. The group went through the case over and over while personal prejudices, personality differences, and tension mounted as the process evolved. While the scorching hot weather conditions and personal affairs to tend to led the juror to make quick and rash decisions, one juror convinced them the fate of the 18 year old was more important than everyone’s problems an convinced them that they could not be sure he was guilty. Juror three took the most convincing. After fighting till he
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
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
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
As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate and seems to be somehow personally involved with the case. At one point, he tells the other jurors about an argument between him and his son. Juror 3 and his son had an argument which made his son run away. When his son returned to apologize, Juror 3 hit him for leaving the first time thus leading him to run away once more. He has not seen his son in two years and this has left him somewhat bitter inside. His anger toward his supposed ungrateful son is projected toward the young man on trial. Juror 3 has no concern for the life of the defendant. He makes it clear that he would have been an executioner and would have pulled the switch on the boy himself. His personal troubles have imposed on his ability to come to a verdict.
...a unanimous vote of not guilty. The final scene takes place signifying the "adjourning stage". Two of the jurors, eight and three exchange the only character names mentioned during the film. The entire process of groupthink occurs in multiple ways that display its symptoms on individual behavior, emotions, and personal filters. These symptoms adversity affected the productivity throughout the juror's debate. In all, all twelve men came to an agreement but displayed group social psychological aspects.
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.
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.