Legal Analysis Of The Film '12 Angry Men'

736 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Which jurors display their biases early in the play twelve angry men

Twelve Angry Men Legal Analysis Brief – Aakriti G
The movie Twelve Angry Men is an American drama directed by Sidney Lumet. The film is about an eighteen-year-old boy from the ghetto who is on a trial for the murder of his abusive father. A jury of twelve men who are in one room, separated from the rest of the world, are charged with deciding the fate of this boy.
As the movie progresses and the evidence is revealed and we see that all present evidence is against the boy and if the verdict results in one which is guilty, it would send him on row for a death sentence would send him to die. It is up to the jurors to provide the correct verdict for the case.
Through the progression of the movie, it is revealed that almost all the jurors already believe that the boy is guilty however; only one of the jurors believes that the boy is not guilty. The fact that one of the juror believes that the …show more content…

The film is very streamlined and everything that we see is through the talks of the jury. I believe if there are good movies that budding lawyers can watch then this movie can be beneficial for setting appropriate standards of practice for jurors. The film highlights the meanings of innocence, prejudice, morality and biases.
Juror 8, through great negotiations, brainstorming and reasoning proves that the boy is not guilty. This juror from a quiet observer takes charge and mergers as leader. Juror 8 displays commitment towards delivering justice. He is reasonable and rational in his decisions and has no ulterior motives besides creating fairness in the legal system.
Twelve Angry Men is a powerful movie with great scenes and dialogues. It very clearly shows the weaknesses of each jury member and their prejudices in the case. After the men leave the room, I believe each one of them would take a good look at decision again from but through the lens of their own

Show More
Related

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

    1039 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    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

  • Ignorance in 12 Angry Men

    709 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    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

  • 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

    ... I've lived among them all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that. I mean, they're born liars.” In this statement you can clearly tell his prejudice against the kid, just because of where he was raised. Juror # 10 and juror # 3 has prejudice against the kid. Juror # 3 has personal experience with a kid like the accused. “Reminded of his own family's personal crisis, Juror # 3 tells the jurors of his own disrespectful, teen aged boy who hit him on the jaw when he was 16. Now 22 years old, the boy hasn't been seen for two years, and the juror is embittered: "Kids! Ya work your heart out."” This is a direct example of juror # 3’s prejudice against the accused. When prejudice was in effect in the movie, it clouded the judgments of the jurors that were prejudice against the boy just because he was raised in the slums.

    Read More

  • Stereotypes In Twelve Angry Men

    804 Words  | 2 Pages

    Juror Eight stood up for what he believed in against eleven other jurors, and eventually influenced them all to reach the verdict of not-guilty. At the end of the case, when the jury is about to come to a final decision, Juror Eight says to Juror Three “It’s not your boy. He’s somebody else.

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Persuasive Essay

    445 Words  | 1 Pages

    The problem that has been tormenting the eight juror is that no other jurors, other then the fifth juror agree with him. The eight juror claims that the boy is not guilty, but since everyone believes that he committed the murder, he has to convince them that he's right. Everyone is also accusing him for his opinion, which is making him frustrated.

    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

  • 12 Angry Men

    844 Words  | 2 Pages

    Juror #1 originally thought that the boy was guilty. He was convinced that the evidence was concrete enough to convict the boy. He continued to think this until the jury voted the first time and saw that one of the jurors thought that the boy was innocent. Then throughout the movie, all of the jurors were slowly convinced that the boy was no guilty.

    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

  • The Problem of Groupthink in 12 Angry Men

    947 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...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.

    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

More about Legal Analysis Of The Film '12 Angry Men'

Open Document