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 …show more content…
could no longer fight anymore, he was the last to admit his reasonable doubt with the claim that the boy was not guilty. Juror three was the voice of unreason in the movie 12 Angry Men. From the beginning, juror three used predisposition and was firmly negative towards the case. As the jury gathered in the sweltering holding room, some were opening up windows and some were setting up ballots. Meanwhile juror three sat down and told juror two that he almost fell asleep and that he thought it was an open and shut case. He then stated, “if you ask me I’d slap those kids down before they start any trouble, it saved a lot of time and money” which leads one to believe that he using his negative predispositions to shut down the case without fair reasoning. Juror three also used personal prejudices as deciding factors for the fate of a young mans life.
A juror of reason would use facts and evidence; instead juror three leaned on stereotypes and prejudices to obscure the truth. He leaned on the fact that the boy was from the slums and the stereotype that he must be up to no good to convince other members that the defendant was just young trash and could not be innocent because of his upbringing. Juror three’s prejudices come from the fact that it is a case involving a young boy who is defying his father. Juror three already has a strong prejudice against children. His son has grown up, challenged his authority and rejected his values. This is why he is so quick to judge the boy on …show more content…
trial. Lastly, Juror three disregarded anything that tested his beliefs that the defendant was guilty.
Juror three wanted so badly for the young boy to be guilty that every time any of the witness’s testimonies were questioned or tested, he would not adhere to the facts. With that being said, he would only believe what everyone else beside the boy told him. When the group tested whether the old man actually heard and witnessed what he did, juror three was quick to say that he didn’t care. He didn’t care about time, logic, or reasoning. The last piece of evidence he had that justified his verdict was that the woman witnessed it. He said if all the other evidence was thrown out that last piece was all they needed. When the jury proved that she could have worn glasses and could have been mistaken, he refused to believe that there was any possibility of a mistake because that would make him have to change his verdict. Therefore, he reverted back to the other evidence then realized he couldn’t because he said to throw away the other
evidence. In the movie 12 Angry Men, juror three is the voice of unreason and unjust. He exhibits this through his negative predispositions, personal prejudices and lack of regard for tests of facts and evidence pertaining to the case. Juror three is the last to be convinced and only changes his mind once he realizes that he is only projecting his feelings about his own son onto the defendant. In the end he is worn out, sweaty and clearly exhausted from fighting. He rips up the picture of him and his son before he gives in and says not guilty. After being the voice of unreason throughout the movie, he finally reasons with the group and puts his past behind him and overcomes his prejudices and learned to not use his past in deciding factors.
The play, ‘Twelve Angry men’, written by Reginald Rose, explores the thrilling story of how twelve different orientated jurors express their perceptions towards a delinquent crime, allegedly committed by a black, sixteen-year-old. Throughout the duration of the play, we witness how the juror’s background ordeals and presumptuous assumptions influence the way they conceptualise the whole testimony itself.
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.
There is a red frame around the square to show that his opinionated anger is the only personality that shows on the outside for the majority of the movie. He is so driven that he states, “I never saw a guiltier man in my life. You sat right in court and heard the same thing I did. The man's a dangerous killer. You could see it” (12 Angry Men). After the perimeter, there is a gradual red fade into a broken heart. This shows how juror three gradually gives up and changes his vote to not guilty. Close to the beginning of the movie, juroe three explains his background by saying, “You’re right. It's the kids. The way they are—you know? They don't listen. I've got a kid. When he was eight years old, he ran away from a fight. I saw him. I was so ashamed, I told him right out, ‘I'm gonna make a man out of you or I'm gonna bust you up into little pieces trying.’ When he was fifteen he hit me in the face. He's big, you know. I haven't seen him in three years. Rotten kid! You work your heart out.... All right, let's get on with it” (12 Angry Men). With this prejudice still in his mind, he then breaks into tears at the end of the movie pleading that the boy is not guilty. To sum it up, juror three brings to the jury a dictatorial attitude that has had past experiences similar to the
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.
However, in Twelve Angry Men, Juror Eight defies prejudices in his own beliefs, and eventually in the final verdict. When the eleven jurors are asking the Eighth Juror why he voted “not guilty”, he responds with “It’s just that we’re talking about somebody’s life here. I mean, we can’t decide in five minutes. Suppose we’re wrong?” (12). Even if the Eighth Juror may think that the boy might have actually killed his father, doesn’t mean he did just because the boy grew up in the slums and is a tough kid. No matter where the boy is from or what he looks like, his life is on the line. Thus, don’t jump to conclusions too quickly. Later on, when the jurors are talking about the knife that the boy had, Juror Eight was “saying it’s possible that the boy lost the knife and that someone else stabbed his father with a similar knife.” (22). Just because a violent boy who grew up in a violent family had a knife, doesn’t necessarily mean he is guilty of murder. Thus, things may not always be the way they seem, so don’t judge a book by its
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
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.
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.
The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in a population. The juror that seemed interesting is Juror #8, who was played by Henry Fonda. Juror #8, or Davis, is an architect, the first dissenter and protagonist in the film. He was the first one to declare that the young man was innocent and he managed to convince the other jurors to see his point of view. Durkheim states that when we respond to deviance, it brings people together (Macionis, 2013, p. 159). We affirm the moral ties that bind us together, which was seen in the movie. At first, almost all of the jurors were so bent on convicting the young man based on their feelings, but they then started to analyze the facts and they came together to make their final decision.
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...
12 Angry men is about a group of men who are appointed as jury’s. They are put in a room until they could come up with a conclusion, on whether the boy who was convicted of murder is guilty or not.