Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
A paragraph about twelve angry men
Meaning of 12 angry men
A paragraph about twelve angry men
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Heroism: this word has different meanings throughout the world, but the various interpretations usually include qualities like courage and compassion, and also handsomeness and strength. While history has always maintained that the latter of those qualities are the most important in determining whether someone is a hero or not, many people today do not agree. True heroes, be they male or female, traditionally attractive or not, weak or strong, can change the world for the better, and many of them do. True heroes champion others and show courage in the face of adversity, regardless of external pressures and personal circumstances. Juror 8 from Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men is one of these heroes; he willingly stands up to his biased and prejudiced …show more content…
peers for a powerless boy whose life rests in their hands. Arthur Ashe once said, “True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic.
It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost.” Juror 8 is the only one from the twelve men who votes ‘not guilty’ in the beginning, and even he admits that it “[may be] for no reason”; however, he quite rightly thinks that this boy, this defendant in a huge system that is currently running because of people like these jurors, deserves more contemplation on his case, more recognition than a ‘yeah, he’s guilty.’ Juror 8 makes it his job to be the boy’s sole advocate in a room full of twelve men, although he knows that both the odds and his peers in the room are against him. He shows compassion [only the first from a long line of heroic qualities that Juror 8 embodies] for a stranger, one that definitely could have just murdered his father, and gives this boy a second chance at a trial with Juror 8 himself as the lawyer, and his prejudiced peers as the judges. Consequently, he stands up against men who constantly threaten him with physical violence and slurs, and most people cannot do that. In today’s society, we shun those who don’t go with the flow; millions of articles and magazines published every day feed on the reader’s insecurity of not being ‘mainstream’. If challenging this belief that ‘normal’ is good is difficult today, where we constantly have revolutionary movements like ‘Occupy Wall Street’ or ‘LGBTQ+ Pride’, it must have been nearly impossible in the era of conservativeness, prejudice, and racism that was the norm in the mid-twentieth century. This bravery is one of the most prominent aspects of heroism, and Juror 8 is truly one of the most courageous jurors in that facet. Additionally, Juror 8 believes that prejudice should not stand in the way of justice. One of the ways that Juror 8 removes credibility from the evidence that Juror 3 , or 10, or 4 constantly bring up is by revealing their prejudice. He tells Juror 3
that he is a sadist for wanting the defendant to die just because he [the juror] has a bad relationship with his son, and asks Juror 10 why he trusts any of the witnesses since they are also from the slums, which according to Juror 4, are “breeding grounds for criminals.” Juror 8 admits that “prejudice always obscures the truth”, but he also informs the others that the concept of reasonable doubt is there so that the jury as a group can disregard their personal opinions to achieve justice and declare a verdict that is as close to the truth as humanly possible. By doing this, Juror 8 exemplifies another heroic quality: the search for justice. Thus, Juror 8 is a true hero: he demonstrates courage, intelligence, and compassion throughout Twelve Angry Men. In our society, when we think of a hero, we think of a strong, dashing young knight who rides to the rescue on a white horse to save the struggling, helpless commoner. Juror 8 does not fit many of these criteria: he is a forty-year-old architect with two children and a wiry build; in fact, he only fits one of them, in which he saves the struggling commoner. However, he is a true hero. Heroes in reality stand up for others less fortunate and .in the process, reveal their courage and bravery by opposing society while being well aware of the consequences. These people embody courage and compassion, and they impact the world your decades to come.
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.
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.
The major conflict in the play, Nine Ten by Warren Leight is jury duty. The first thing people think when they hear the words “jury duty” is sitting in a courthouse all day and night disagreeing whether a person is guilty or innocent. For most, the immediate thought when getting that letter out of the mailbox is that they do not have time. Their lives are full enough with running the kids to school and to after school activities. Their next thought may be, ‘but I’m going out of town soon’, just because a select few are going to jury duty does not mean that time will stand still and wait for their duty to be done. The last thing to cross most people’s mine, is that jury duty is a right, a civic duty, to allow a fellow man to speak to a member of his peers. However, just because most people dislike jury duty does not mean everyone does, some people may take great pride in deciding the fate of another person.
Juror number eight is the main protagonist, he also a reserved with his thoughts, yet very strategic with them. He is the defender of the down trodden victim. He has a calm rational approach to everything and he reveals the gaps in the testimonies placed against the defendant. These examples would be; that the old man couldn’t have seen the boy run out of the house, as the old man had a limp and therefore could not make it to the door in time. The old lady across the road could have never saw the boy stab his father, due to she wasn’t wearing her glasses and it was pitch black. Number eight is a man that s...
Prejudices cause peoples’ perceptions to be altered. The jurors are presented quite a bit about the boy’s background, and his records. Juror Ten struggles to see past the stereotypes and judges the boy based on his past actions. Juror Ten claims,” He’s a common ignorant slob. He don’t even speak good English,” (326). What is so ironic about this statement is that Ten claims the boy is dense and bases this claim on the fact that he can’t speak English well. However as corrected by Eleven, it is “doesn’t” not “does”. Perhaps the boy learned from his mistakes and sought to change. That is what life is all about. We fall down and hopefully learn from our mistakes so that we can create a better future for ourselves. Juror Ten is firmly set on the idea that the court covered everything by repeatedly saying, “They proved it,’’ on page 317. Unlike Eight he is not open-minded. As a juror it is important to be skeptics because the in court, lawyers may have presented information in such a way that information is perceived differently. Also crucial information may have not have been analyzed carefully. It’s important not to dwell on the past; its also keep prejudices from exposing you to
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
Juror #10, a garage owner, segregates and divides the world stereotypically into ‘us’ and ‘them.’ ‘Us’ being people living around the rich or middle-class areas, and ‘them’ being people of a different race, or possessing a contrasting skin color, born and raised in the slums (poorer parts of town). It is because of this that he has a bias against the young man on trial, for the young man was born in the slums and was victim to domestic violence since the age of 5. Also, the boy is of a Hispanic descent and is of a different race than this juror, making him fall under the juror’s discriminatory description of a criminal. This is proven on when juror #10 rants: “They don’t need any real big reason to kill someone, either. You know, they get drunk, and bang, someone’s lying in the gutter… most of them, it’s like they have no feelings (59).
Despite knowing how angry the other men would be at him, the 8th juror stood up for the defendant and did what he could to make sure the boy had a fair trial. From the beginning, Juror eight was clearly confident in what he believed in and did not care about how foolish he looked. The confidence he showed brought the other jurors to rethink their vote. Juror nine was the first person to recognize the amount of courage it took for juror eight to stand up against the men. After being the first to change his vote nine explains “This gentleman chose to stand alone against us. That’s his right. It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone even if you believe in something very strongly. He left the verdict up to us. He gambled for support and I gave it to him. I want to hear more. The vote is ten to two.” The 9th juror agreed with the eight juror about wanting justice. By standing up for justice he gave nine the courage to stand up for the same reason. Juror eight continued to be consistent with what he believed in. Never did he
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.
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.
Dictating a man's future would seem enough be a difficult task for anyone, for it is whether this man ends up with a lifetime in prison or he is given the privilege to walk the streets. Deciphering facts from fictitious tales, and putting everything up for questioning. Such an experience was only granted to men in the 1950’s. A time when race and gender were gradually beginning to not be definitive of an individual's social class. Although, it may seem like an incredibly undesirable task, sitting in hot New York courthouse with eleven other men is needed for justice to rightfully be served. Yet, the justice system is inevitably susceptible to a flaw, as personal prejudices slip through the initial screening and become apparent in the jury room. In Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men the jury systems imperfections are addressed. He demonstrates the atmosphere of the jury room by introducing twelve characters with unique personalities. A particular character I believe to stand out from the rest would be juror ten. Upon first glance, he comes across as a bigot, but as the play continues he exhibits he is also impatient, arrogant, cantankerous and several other traits.
In the film “12 Angry Men”, characters argue about whether a boy should be convicted of the murder of his father. Each character has their opinion about the case. Shapes can be used to describe the emotions, beliefs, and views about a problem presented to a character based on moral values, stereotypes, or something that has happened to them in the past. Therefore, the same is true for both the characters in the film and people in real life. Before you judge a person, think about their backstory, because maybe they weren’t brought up the same way as you, and that could leave a lifelong impression. Juror 3, Juror 8, and Juror 5 can all be represented by these shapes.
The American courtroom drama teleplay ’12 Angry Men’ by Reginald Rose is a classic and highlights the flaws of the judicial system. Published in 1954, the play is set in a jury room in New York. It focuses on the 12 members of the jury having to deliberate and try reach a unanimous decision that will determine the defendant’s fate. This essay will argue that Reginald Roses’ play will continue to be relevant due to its similarity of flaws and imperfections in the judicial system, which will be shown on various levels, and how in today’s society we still encounter these issues. This is displayed through the deliberate construction of character relationships and enduring themes of prejudice.
Harper Lee’s novel, “To Kill a Mockingbird”, depicts a strong sense of morality and justice through the courageous character, Atticus Finch, who desires to defend an innocent black man charged with rape in a racist atmosphere. The concept of justice is also explored in Twelve Angry Men through Henry Fonda, or Juror 8, who decides not to jump to conclusions and attempted to defend a young boy charged with first-degree murder. As a product of both these character’s dedication to their job, they gave the accused a slight “ray of hope”.
The movie Twelve Angry Men would have been a much shorter movie if the trial had taken place in Oregon. The 10-2 jury system has existed since 1934 in Oregon as opposed to the unanimous verdict that is required elsewhere. However, A unanimous verdict is the best option because it forces lengthy discussion, which in turn makes whatever verdict to come out, one that can be trusted by the majority of onlookers. While some might claim that saving money overrides the need for a unanimous jury verdict, one cannot repay an innocent man back for the years lost after a wrongful conviction.