12 Angery Men Moral Dilemma
Twelve Angry Men is a movie about a young boy on trial for murdering his father. If the boy is found guilty, he will be sentenced to death. The jury men are very aware of this fact, most are perfectly fine with sending this boy to die as one man searches for the empathy of his jury peers. One by one the jury begins to sway toward the not guilty plea, as every fact thrown into conversation gets disproved. Now, one lone juror faces not the pressure of his peers but the pressure of his emotional attachment to the case to see that the boy be punished. This finally leads to Juror #3’s inevitable surrender of not guilty.
Juror #3 came into this trial with a moral dilemma long before hearing the facts of the case. Given his past experiences, he would feel more inclined to vote guilty as to punish and make an example of this boy so that other kids would think twice. In this case if the jury decided on a guilty verdict, the defendant would be put to death. People might make rash decisions based on emotional ties to certain subjects. For some it might be a moral dilemma, like Juror #8, or past experience with a similar situation, like Juror #3. Juror #3 even mentions that kids have no respect for adults these days(12 Angry Men). This clearly shows his state of mind when it comes to youth. I would consider the experience he had with his son very truthful based on the absence of his son in his life now. I think the whole truth can only be found by comparing his side of the story and his sons. However, they aren’t the ones on trial, the boy who murdered his father is. But does Juror #3 see a strange boy in the defendants chair or his own son? You can see that emotions and past experiences can play a large role in a decision making process.
Emotion does play a hefty part but facts can overcome any emotions. One of Juror #3’s biggest arguments was the testimony of an old man that lived on the floor below the apartment, where the murder took place. The old man stated in court
Juror #3 came into this trial with a moral dilemma long before hearing the facts of the case. Given his past experiences, he would feel more inclined to vote guilty as to punish and make an example of this boy so that other kids would think twice. In this case if the jury decided on a guilty verdict, the defendant would be put to death. People might make rash decisions based on emotional ties to certain subjects. For some it might be a moral dilemma, like Juror #8, or past experience with a similar situation, like Juror #3. Juror #3 even mentions that kids have no respect for adults these days(12 Angry Men). This clearly shows his state of mind when it comes to youth. I would consider the experience he had with his son very truthful based on the absence of his son in his life now. I think the whole truth can only be found by comparing his side of the story and his sons. However, they aren’t the ones on trial, the boy who murdered his father is. But does Juror #3 see a strange boy in the defendants chair or his own son? You can see that emotions and past experiences can play a large role in a decision making process.
Emotion does play a hefty part but facts can overcome any emotions. One of Juror #3’s biggest arguments was the testimony of an old man that lived on the floor below the apartment, where the murder took place. The old man stated in court