More handpicked essays just for you.
How does sociology impact our lives
Impact of stereotypes and prejudices
How does sociology helps in understanding human behavior
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The movie 12 angry men is about twelve jurors who are deliberating a case of a young Puerto Rican male who is accused of murdering his father. The young man has a history of getting into trouble and an alibi that is not completely solid, as well as two eye witnesses who claimed to have seen the crime being committed. With this evidence it is thought to be decided the young man accused of the crime committed it, and would be put to death. The jurors listen to the evidence presented by the prosecutor and the young mans’ attorney. They enter the jury room, all but one is convinced that he is guilty. There are several different personalities on this jury team; the task-oriented jury foreman, a shy business man, a man interested more in baseball, …show more content…
an older very detail oriented man, a man from the slums himself, an angry bully estranged from his own son who is open about his prejudice, and the juror who refused to vote guilty without considering all of the evidence. In the beginning, it was clear that many of the jurors prejudged the young man based on various stereotypes about his culture.
Saying things like they had experienced certain cases with “those people” without completely judging the young man as his own personal accounts. This social categorization (the mental process of classifying people into groups on the basis of common characteristics.) was the basis of many of the votes being in favor of guilty. Out-group homogeneity, or the "perception that individuals in the out-group are more similar to each other than they really are", leads the jurors to believe that "they" are all …show more content…
alike. However, in the United States criminal justice system, jurors must all agree to produce a verdict. Although in this case there is just one juror disagreeing with the rest, they must continue discussing and take into consideration all evidence until they all agree on the same verdict. Juror number 8 in this case, voted “not guilty” in the preliminary ballot, so involuntarily with much dissatisfaction they jury had to continue discussing the case to try to convince juror number 8 to agree with them. Juror number 8 is clearly a rational man who empathizes with the young man’s background by taking into consideration the different things he faces on a daily basis instead of stereotyping him to be “just like the others”. As the discussion went on Juror number 8 proved several points that would lead the others to also believe that the young man was “not guilty”. He started by using evidence with the pocket knife the jurors were told that this was the only pocket knife of its kind and the shop that he purchased it at had not seen any other pocket knife like it. Juror 8 pulls the exact same pocket knife out of his pocket showing that it is not the only one of its kind and, there is a possibility of the murderer being someone else. Of course the men discussed and made a compelled argument that because of the eye witness the pocket knife evidence was still not enough to determine the young man was “not guilty”. Still there were a few men at this point you could slightly tell had become more open minded to the idea that he may just be “not guilty”. After the argument between the men settled a little the jurors decided to take another vote. This time the votes would be private. The preliminary vote was taken was public. As they voted by raising their hands, many of the jurors, who later changed their mind when the vote was done privately about the young man being guilty for example the old man, looked around to see how the other people were voting. But, when the ballot was private, there was more than one person who didn’t comply with the original verdict. This strongly suggests that there was pressure to conform (Adjusting your opinions, judgments, or behavior so that it matches the opinions, judgments, or behavior of other people.) to the majority. It is said we are more likely to conform when we are facing a unanimous group of at least 4/5 people, when we must give our response in front of the group, when we have not already expressed a commitment to a different idea or opinion, if the task is ambiguous or difficult if we doubt our own abilities or knowledge in the situation, and when we’re strongly attracted to the group and want to be a member.
As the discussion amongst the jury team continues juror number 8 sways several others to his belief of the young man being “not guilty”. After the old man was convinced, who initially agreed with the others in public after looking around at their votes; the man who was also a slum kid when he was a child was convinced as well. Originally he didn’t say much, and was clearly unsure about whether or not the boy was guilty. I believe considering he used to be a slum kid himself he doubted it and only went along with the others originally because of pressure to be like the other
jurors. After a while almost everyone was convinced. The guy that had plans to go to a baseball game displayed the conformity the most to me because he changed his verdict multiple times to match whatever had the highest votes. He did this partially because he had a baseball game he wanted to get to but also just to fit in. Once he changed his plea for the final time to not guilty, he couldn’t even give any reasons why. “Duh, I just don’t think he’s guilty.” was his reasoning for choosing to change his plea.
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,
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.
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.
We are all different. We are all at least biased on one topic. Some people just look at the surface, while others dig deeper into the facts that were given. Reginald Rose demonstrated these points beautifully in 12 Angry Men. All of the Jurors bring a special part of their personality to the jury room, which is the beauty of having a jury. All of the jurors are different in their own unique way,
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.
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.
This report is on a movie called, “12 Angry Men.” The movie is about 12 men that are the jury for a case where a young man is being accused of killing his father. A major conflict that is very obvious is the disagreement on whether the young boy was guilty or innocent. After court when all of the men sat down to begin their discussion Courtney B. Vance (#1) Took charge and respectfully was now the leader. He asked what everyone’s votes were and all of the men except for Jack Lemmon (#8) voted the young man was guilty. Because Jack was the odd one that chose differently than the rest of the men, all of the other Jures, were defensive about the evidence just because they were all so confused.
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
This event in his personal life was dramatically influencing his decision in the jury room, but he was able to overcome his personal prejudice from the efforts of juror 8 “it’s hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this, and no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth” This quote shows juror 8’s understanding towards juror 3 in particular, and in turn allows him to overcome his personal prejudice. The young boy’s social status and childhood upbringing also influenced many of the juror’s perspective on him. The men came with pre conceived ideas about boy, just because he grew up in a slum, and allowed this reason and possibly their own personal reason to obscure their view on the
People tend to base characteristics and personalities of people pretty quickly. Most people base their opinions on stereotypes. Reginald Rose and his play “12 Angry Men” demonstrate how people are quick to judge other people based on looks. In the movie all twelve jurors must decide if a young boy is guilty or innocent. At the beginning of the movie/play-write, only one juror, juror eight, decides the boy is innocent. Based on the evidence gathered from the case everyone agrees the boy is innocent except one man, juror three. He eventually breaks down and tells the truth. The viewers can tell that this movie/play is full of emotions. Each of these emotions can be described as something more than what comes to the eye.
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
...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.