The first Juror to votes not guilty in the initial vote is the old white man who works as an architect. As when sitting on his office and drawing blueprints for constructing a building, He was very quiet and respectful in the room. He wasn’t convinced that the boy is innocent, but he wants to compare what’s really happened with the testimony’s evidence. At the end of the film he introduces himself to one of the jurors as Davis. He is free of prejudice, and he believes in justice for all. Although in his job he can be sure about the construction material and similar things,…
Anyone doing the treating the issue of prejudice in R.E. class will find 12 Angry Men a valuable resource, though there isn’t any overt faith element. I find using individual short scenes to be the best approach – time to show and discuss within one class period. I have chosen what I consider to be five key scenes that illustrate the theme effectively – even to do three of them would provide a week’s work. In this commentary I’m dealing primarily with the 1957 version directed by Sidney Lumet, but most comments would also apply to the 1997 version by William Friedkin. In fact for RE classes it might be worth making some comparisons as the jury in the latter is more ethnically balanced, and the judge is a woman, though there are still 12 Men.…
He acted as the leader for the people who believed the defendant was guilty. He, like the Architect, is a natural born leader. He loudly argued his opinions about the case and refused to back down from his stance. Even in the end when he was completely out numbered he fought for his belief despite the persuasion of others. He couldn't care less what they thought of him. He was there to do his job and wouldn't be easily influenced by others.…
In today’s fast-paced world we often find ourselves making hasty, split-second decisions on the seemingly unimportant matters with which we are faced. According to The Critical Thinking Handbook “...critical thinking evaluates reasons and brings thought in line with...” our best sense of what is true enabling us come to insightful conclusions on which we base our actions. In Twelve Angry Men a group of twelve ordinary citizens are faced with an important choice whose consequence is the fate of a sixteen-year-old boy accused of killing his father. Initially deemed an open-shut-case, throughout the play we witness the jurors, under the direction of Juror 8, slowly break down the evidence and testimony on which they later base their final verdict. Each juror with his unique approach to reasoning raises important arguments, suggesting both the innocence and guilt of the accused and further adding to the complexity of the case. In Twelve Angry Men, three pieces of evidence that proved crucial in shifting the jury in favor of acquittal were the murder weapon, the old man’s testimony, and that of the woman who claimed to have seen the murder from across the street.…
Democracy and the right to serve as a juror are a great privilege and responsibility which is not to be taken lightly, as see n…
Juror 10 is clearly motivated by his prejudice. He uses his intolerance to determine his vote for the accused defendant. For instance, in the beginning of Act I, Juror 10 haphazardly said, “ Look at the kind of people they are, you know them,” (13) without even digging deep into the case. It is quite obvious that Juror 10 is generating an “opinion” of the defendant based on the color of his skin and his background. He does not refer to them as regular people, but as “they” and “them” on certain pages. In the courtroom though, no juror is to have any judgments, they are supposed to bring the facts to the table, not their opinions. Juror 10’s outlook of the defendant is blinding him from thinking of any reasonable doubt. Further more, when Juror 10 said, “…I lived among em’ all my life, you can’t believe a word they say. You know that,” he yet again was referring to the defendant’s people as “em” and “they”. You can clearly infer that while Juror 10 was living amongst them, he must have experienced or witnessed situations which has caused him to have judgments on these specific people. These same judgments he brings to the courtroom just add difficulty into solving the case. Following Juror 10’s views further, when Juror 5 was explaining how the person who did stab the father was…
The movie Twelve Angry Men provided an example of a work group and a service group, because they had the goal of finding the man innocent or guilty on behalf of the organization of the court system and assisted a worthy cause that helped people outside the group. The judge said, “One man is dead. The life of another is at stake. If there is a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused . . . then you must declare him not guilty. If, however, there is no reasonable doubt, then he must be found guilty. Whichever way you decide, the verdict must be unanimous. I urge you to deliberate honestly and thoughtfully.” This is the goal that the men are striving to achieve and what makes them a working group and the man they are helping makes them an example of a service group.…
Twelve Angry Men is a very interesting play about an unfortunate young man, who was convicted of killing his dad. The worst part was, the young man was only nineteen, and his life was just starting. The jurors listened to all the evidence, then came the hard part, making the decision: guilty, or innocent. Eleven jurors said guilty and only one said innocent. There was a lot of peer pressure involved. I decided to write about different peer pressures three of the jurors used. The three jurors I picked are juror #10, juror #7, and juror #8.<br><br>The first juror I want to write about is #10. Juror #10 was using a lot of sarcasm, whenever he was trying to prove his point, or prove someone else wrong. I think that this method of peer pressure is one of the most powerful ones. I believes so, because when you are embarrassed in front of 11 other people (in this case jurors) you do not know, really lowers your self-esteem. It may lower it to the point where you will say guilty, eve though deep down inside, you will feel that the person is innocent. This is a quote I picked to illustrate sarcasm skillfully used by #10: "You're a pretty smart fellow, aren't you?" I think this one sentence could really put anyone down, and make anyone feel embarrassed, and maybe stupid. <br><br>Another juror I decided to write about is #7. He was muscle flexing most of the time. Muscle flexing means, he was raising his voice, even screaming at everyone, as if he was the boss. Whenever #8 was trying to present reasonable arguments to the rest of the jurors, #7 would start screaming, even jumping out of his chair, calling seven crazy. Although a lot of evidence was really convincing, he tried to prove it unconvincing and use sarcasm to convince other jurors otherwise. One example of #7 using sarcasm would be this quote: "Why don't we have them run the trial over..." I think this quote clearly shows that juror #7 is trying to convince other jurors, that court's evidence proves the young man is…
In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginad Rose the twelve jurors have to decide if a young boy is guilty or not guilty. The boy is accused of the murder of his father. His fate lies in the hands of the twelve jurors. Will he get the death penalty? Will they prove that the young boy is not guilty? Will he get to live the rest of his life? There are many different versions of this story including William Friedkins film version produced in 1997. Friedkins film version is easier to comprehend because it includes more detail than Rose’s original play version of Twelve Angry Men. Friedkin goes more in depth in his version of the story unlike Rose. Its more effective to the reader because of the message its telling us.…
His emotional prejudice gets in the way of his critically thinking through the evidence because he has emotional conflict with his own son. He is grouping all teens together because of his altercation with his son, and Juror 3 is just punishing the young man on trial because he cannot come to turns with his own failings as a parent with his child. Towards the end of the play Juror 3 is all alone on the vote count; he “looks around at all of them for a long time. They sit silently, waiting for him to speak, and all of them despise him for his stubbornness. Then, suddenly, his face contorts as if he is about to cry, and he slams his fist down on the table” … (thundering) All right” (30).…
Josiah Bont- to what degree should he be excused given his own history of abuse (200 words)…
This was a meeting of 12 jurors to deliberate the fate of an eighteen year old boy. The meeting was more of a verbal structure. The jury foreman was the team leader of the meeting. I feel as though the beginning of the meeting started strong with his decision of voting for guilty or innocence that lead to a hung jury. There was no planning really or discussing the trial at the beginning, and the jurors did not work together in a timely manner. The presentation of evidence was to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the teen was either guilty or innocent. A closer look at the evidence presented brought good points as to why the boy was innocent. The example in which the knife was used, the question being brought up about if the teen really lost the knife used to kill his father before going to the movies was even possible, or did he really even go to movies were all valid points that needed to be revisited. Also the demonstration of the elderly man being able to make it to the door in fifteen seconds to see if the person going down the stairs the man’s son or someone else clearly helped to head the meeting in a different direction. Along with the demonstration it was discovered that the elderly man would not have been able to hear clearly with the noise from noise from the L train. Most important of all was the question of the lady across the railroad tracks in another apartment really sees the murder take place while the L train was passing in ten seconds without her eyeglasses. All these points helped to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the boy was innocent. Finally all the jurors agreed on a not guilty plea and presented it to the judge.…
During deliberation there are multiple occasions where there are similarities between the story and the movie. One occasion, how the juror members are sitting around the table in order. Another, how #3 is still a sadist. Also, juror #7 is very obnoxious and wants to leave early because he has places to go. The jurors’ votes are the same in the book and the movie. The first, second, third, and fourth vote remain the same throughout both of them. Another similarity is how the jurors think that #3 is ignorant due to the fact that he is a sadist and only wants to convict the boy of his charge so the boy can suffer.…
7. Courage “…is when you know you’re licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what.”…
The topic of perception of self and others was seen through the majority on the beginning of the film, “12 Angry Men.” Perception is when you choose, organize, and…