At the beginning of Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the jury has just finished listening to six days of trial proceedings. A nineteen-year old man is on trial for the murder of his father. The defendant has a criminal record (and a lot of circumstantial evidence piled against him). The defendant, if found guilty, would receive a mandatory death penalty.…
In the 1957’s movie 12 Angry Men, it is about twelve jurors who have to come to a verdict whether or not the young boy is guilty for murdering his father. All but one juror said guilty. In the movie we see that jurors are using the arguments made by the witnesses and evidence found which were presented in court to help justify their decision and come to a conclusion on whether he is or isn’t guilty for killing his father. During this deliberation we can see emotion, reason and sense of perception being used by each juror to decide upon their verdict. Some questions that were raised during the movie were, do we make decisions based on our emotion? To what extent does the juror show to be rational or irrational? And In what ways are the eyewitness…
Twelve Angry Men is a book written by Reginald Rose and takes place late one hot summer afternoon in the jury-room of a New York Court of law. The story revolves around a Jury that is trying to judge a murder trial. The 12 jurors must decide whether the defendant is guilty or not. The power of persuasion does not only influence characters in the book, but also persuades us to rethink, ‘Should something be changed in the judicial system?’…
In the movie twelve angry man, after the twelve jurors listened to the facts in the trail, the judge gives her instructions to them. The judge told them that the man could face the death penalty if he found guilty. The 12 man gather in a stifling hot room to have a concluding about the case. They start arguing and adding their own experience, culture, and understanding of people's motives as a way of reconsidering the facts. Although all the jurors had listened to the same stated facts and they were in the same situation, each one of them interprets the facts differently. This reflects the differences in people and the different ways that we view the same things.…
The movie 12 Angry Men depicts a typical scene today: twelve jury members meeting to discuss a case presented to them and determine guilt or innocence of a young man accused of killing his own father. Usually the jury room is a place for discussion and debate, but the evidence has swayed all but one of the jurors into voting guilty. The group in the movie is a jury of 12 men with various backgrounds and age groups. They were placed in a deliberation room where the entire move took place.…
In the drama Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, there are twelve jurors to discuss and deliberate if the murder in the first degree is guilt or not. Because the verdict must be unanimous, twelve jurors have a critical thinking in their discussion and finally made the vote from eleven jurors vote for guilty to unanimous vote for not guilty. During the development of the voting, Juror Three is hardly to persuade because he has a serious prejudice to the murder. If Juror Three does not admit the murder is not guilty, they cannot settle a lawsuit. Therefore, Juror Three’s prejudice should be the key to get the final verdict.…
Throughout the years of America, we had many juries during criminal trials to decide if the defendant guilty or not guilty. In the 1957 movie, 12 Angry Men shows the best representation of American jury system and how people change their minds. 12 Angry Men shows that personal feeling get in the way in their votes. The movie is about how 12 jurors decide the fate of young boy that persumed he killed his father, while during the initial vote only Juror 8 raised his hand not guilty. Then throughout the movie and script each of the 11 jurors for various reason change their votes to not guilty. The 12 jurors change their votes from guilty to not guilty through character flaws, positive personality traits, expertise on the evidence, and pattern of behavior.…
I have recently read Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose and decided to write a letter based on your behavior in the jury. I’ll start my letter with your personal life, you started your business from scratch and now you have thirty-four employees working for you. How do you treat your worker: do you treat them with respect? By the way you were behaving in the jury, it seems like you disrespect your employees. You might be wondering why I called you a disrespectful person?…
At the conception of Twelve Angry Men, Rose exposes the audience to the devastating heat in the jury room which over looks the "New York sky line" on what is described as "the hottest day of the the year". At this stage it is revealed to the audience the apathetic nature of jury members, uninterested in the "grave responsibility" they have in deciding the fate of the "16 year old boys life" and more interested with the goal of escaping the plain, oven like jury room. With each juror being blinded by the thick glaze of heat In front of them a verdict of guilty becomes the instinctive state of mind and the room for reasonable doubt is eliminated from all but one. The author, Reginald Rose displays through juror 8 that to be doubtful when challenging a majority becomes a harder state of mind, "as it's not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of other" at this moment juror 8 initiates his campaign that we can never be certain about anything, we can only make assumptions based on the information provided.…
Imagine if you just saw your best friend being taken in front of your eyes, and never being able to see her again? How would you react? In the book, “Rage Of The Fallen” by Joseph Delaney, a boy by the name of Tom Ward goes through that exact situation. This is a fantasy book in which there are things like worlds, magic, and other things, which is why it’s important to understand it. In order to do so you need to know about the setting, the characters, the conflict, etc.…
Twelve Angry Men is a play 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.…
Twelve Angry Men illustrates the dangers of a justice system that relies on twelve individuals reaching a life-or-death decision Discussion From the introduction after the headline, we are informed that twelve angry men come from different hierarchy, some of them are wealthy, high-education people, and some of them are poor, refugee people. they also have different disposition, juror No.3 is a mean and extremely opinionated person, and No.2 is a hesitate person; most of them are quite different. they are the behalf of social, that’s one of the element causes their conflict. Whatever the result, it is neither good nor bad for them. What supports their commitment to fulfilling their obligations?…
A persons surroundings can influence him. In "12 Angry Men" by Reginald Rose a young mans life is held by twelve men with contrasting views. After hearing, the case the jurors go into deliberations. Eleven of the 12 are convinced that the boy murdered his father. However, Juror # 8 a caring man, who wishes to talk about why the other jurors think that the boy is guilty, clashes with Juror # 3, a sadistic man who would pull the switch himself to end the boys life. Early on, it's not revealed why #3 feels so strongly about putting the boy to death. He is just so dead set on killing him though. But because of Juror # 8, the others must now go over the whole case again to review the facts. According to Rose, several elements can influence a jury's verdict, such as the emotional make-up of individual jurors. Many elements can change a jurors decision. Juror #3, who is convinced that the boy is guilty, and is allied with Juror#4, who is eventually convinced by #8 showing of how the two testimonies given by the old woman and old man are lies, votes guilty. Three outraged by this exclaims "A guilty man's gonna be walking the streets... he's got to die! Stay with me." But #4 sees the truth that #8 has brought into the light and still votes guilty. Juror #8 tries to convince #3 how the boy is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt but #3 does not listen and would rather see the boy die. "For this kid, you bet I'd pull the switch." This shows how emotionally unstable Juror #3 is. He is a grown man living in a civilized community and would like to see a boy who he does not even know die by his own hands Juror #8 does not think highly of Three for what he says about killing the boy and shouts "your a sadist." which is the absolute truth about Three. The emotional make-up of a juror can change his decision on weather or not to let a man live or die. When someone is asked to judge someone else, should not you look at al the facts to be sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that the man who…
The setting of 12 Angry Men is a jury deliberation room where the jurors are and required to decide the guilt or innocence of an 18 year old that is accused of committing first-degree murder by stabbing his father with a switchblade knife. Witnesses were presented to give evidence of hearing a quarrel; hearing a threat to kill, and have seeing the boy run away. Another witness swore to having seen the boy stabbing his father from a window across from where the murder occurred. Eleven jurors were convinced the boy was guilty and deserved the death penalty. One raised questions he felt had not been asked or had not been pursued by the defense.…
The film “12 Angry Men” is a 1957 drama consisting of a dozen men on jury, who attempt to reach a verdict involving a teenager in a murder case. A guilty verdict was initially predicted, but the jury members start questioning and reasoning the testimonies given in court. Was the boy being accused of stabbing his father really guilty? All the information regarding the timing of the train, the timing of the murder, and the testimonies did not add up. Through much debate, a complex voting process, and many concepts learned through SCOM, the jury managed to attain a not-guilty ruling due to the inadequate testimonies and facts gathered.…