Carter Dormann 12 Angry Men Mrs. Johnson April 24, 2024. In “12 Angry Men, Juror number 8 (Doug) was a person who lived a great life. He was a very compassionate, and peaceful man who was dedicated to finding the truth about the case about the child who was blamed for the murder of his father. In this case, out of the 12 jurors who constantly grappled with this case, Doug was probably the most compassionate and the nicest to all the people to find the truth. Doug was a man who was married, had two kids, and worked as an architect before he was called for juror duty. With the many heated debates and conflicting personalities, one of those jurors emerges like a beacon, he stands for integrity and humanity: Juror number 8. Moreover, Juror Number …show more content…
His calm demeanor coupled with his ability to articulate arguments, gradually chips away at the prejudices and preconceptions that cloud his peers' judgment. By fostering an environment of open-mindedness and mutual respect, he creates space for dissenting voices to be heard and for consensus to be reached based on reason rather than emotion. Throughout his unwavering commitment to justice, his belief in the play was to be courageous and willing to stand alone to fight for this kid. Doug transcends the confines of the jury room, he symbolizes the ways of democracy and the moral courage that he has in order to help his thoughts come out. To continue, Doug embodies the essence of the juror duty that he is on. A vote of guilty and a vote of not guilty just set these jurors off because as one person is persuaded to do not guilty, the other people that said guilty would just be set off and then a whole argument would be in place due to the fact that they are all very stubborn and selfish not to think about the case and just go with their gut and feel like they are making …show more content…
When they acted this out, it took the man over 40 seconds to get across the hall. Also, know that the old man has had 2 strokes and uses a walker. Central to Juror Number 8's character is his unwavering commitment to justice and fairness. Throughout the play, he demonstrates an unwavering dedication to the principles of due process and the presumption of innocence. His calm demeanor, coupled with his ability to articulate complex arguments, gradually chips away at the prejudices and preconceptions that cloud his peers' judgment. At its core, Juror Number 8's refusal to capitulate to pressure reflects an unwavering commitment to his principles and an unshakeable sense of moral courage. Despite facing harsh, ridicule, and even threats of violence, he remains resolute in his pursuit of justice. His willingness to endure personal sacrifice for the sake of what is right is a powerful testament to the transformative power of individual integrity and conviction. In the end, his courage inspires his fellow jurors to confront their own biases and prejudices, ultimately leading to a just verdict. In conclusion, Juror Number 8's character in "12 Angry Men" serves as a powerful embodiment
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...
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.
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
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
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.
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, a group of twelve jurors are deciding the fate of a young boy accused of murdering his father. Throughout the juries dilleration, one man exhibits all of the qualities of leadership. This man is juror number 8 played by Henry Fonda. Fonda not only exhibits the the 10 qualities of a leader but he uses these qualities to lead the entire jury to a vote of not guilty (Fonda & Lumet, 1957).
Morgan Maynard Dr. Milburn ENG 121 4 June 2024 Twelve Angry Men: In Reginald Rose’s innovative drama Twelve Angry Men, the character of Juror 4 stands out as an example of rationality and precision. Tasked with determining the guilt or innocence of a young defendant, Junior 4 consistently employs logic, factual analysis, and a composed demeanor to navigate the intense deliberations of the jury room. By examining his obedience to the facts, logical reasoning, and calm disposition, we can understand how Juror 4’s credibility and ethical approach significantly influence the jury’s dynamic and underscore the importance of integrity and rationality in the pursuit of justice. Juror 4’s ethos as an arguer is the most compelling among the twelve jurors, demonstrated through his
Twelve Angry Men brings up a few issues the criminal justice system has. The jury selection is where issue number one arises. “A jury of one’s peer’s acts as an important check in cases where a defendant fears that the local justice system may have a prejudice against him, or in corruption cases in which the judiciary itself may be implicated” (Ryan). Deciding one 's future or even fate, in this case, is no easy task, as depicted by the 8th juror.
They must come to a unanimous decision. Jurors discuss their points of view and Juror #8 questions the two witnesses that supposedly heard and seen the young man killing his father. After heated deliberation, the vote was unanimous and the young Latino man was declared not guilty. Organizational Behavior Exhibited in the Movie 12 Angry Men Juror #8 did not subscribe to the idea of groupthink.