LETTER RECOMMENDING THE MOTION PICTURE “12 ANGRY MEN” In 1954‚ an understated motion picture was released in theaters. Despite its invigorating content‚ the movie made very little money and was virtually unknown to the vast public for decades. About 25 years ago‚ this movie was rediscovered‚ and has since become an American classic. 12 Angry Men‚ starring Henry Fonda‚ E.G. Marshall‚ and Lee Cobb‚ is the story of twelve jurors who determine the fate of a teenage Puerto Rican boy charged with
Premium Jury 12 Angry Men Henry Fonda
Twelve Angry Men is a very interesting film. As the evidence is brought up to question by the jurors themselves. The complexity of this case grew as the films went on. Then came the hard part‚ making the decision‚ guilty or not guilty. Especially when you have jurors that are over shadowed by prejudice that influence their decision. It is only when prejudice is set aside that the jurors’ are able to make a more logical decision on the case. As the movie continues‚ all twelve jurors slowly arrive
Premium Film Crime Violence
12 Angry Men Paper 9/17/13 The movie “12 Angry Men” is about a murder trial set in the mid 1900’s when the American legal system had very different rules from what it has now. The trial is about a 16 year old boy who supposedly murdered his father late one night in New York City. He was from a slum‚ with a history of problems with the law‚ including knife fights. The jury is made up of twelve white men who are supposed to deliberate about the boy’s fate when he is Latino. In the beginning of
Premium Jury Decision making
Analysis of voice recognition and eyewitness testimonies The film 12 Angry Men is about a murder trial conducted in a courtroom. The judge gave the jury its final instruction telling them that a guilty verdict will result in a death sentence for the defendant‚ an 18-year-old boy who was accused of murdering his father using a knife! One juror had a personal connection with the case. He has not seen his son for more than two years. He claims that the young boy is guilty and that all young
Premium Jury Not proven Verdict
12 Angry Men Welcome gentlemen of the jury‚ I am here to prove why the accused is guilty for murdering an innocent victim. At the time of the crime scene there were two witnesses who claim that the accused murdered the victim. One of the witnesses was an old man that lived above the accused apartment who heard the victim and the accused arguing‚ the second witness who lived across the street was an old lady who saw the victim get attacked by the accused with a knife. The weapon that the accused
Premium Murder Capital punishment Life imprisonment
Set in the sweltering summer of 1954‚ Reginald Rose’s socially insightful play "Twelve Angry Men"‚ illustrates the dangers of a justice system that relies on twelve individuals to reach a "life or death" decision with collective states of minds hindered by "personal prejudice". At the conception of the play‚ rose explores the idea that doubt is a harder state of mind than certainty by portraying doubt‚ in the guilt of the boy‚ as a minority view within the courtroom. However‚ as the play progresses
Premium Jury Verdict Not proven
12 Angry Men I believe in the beginning the 2 main jurors who were basing their decisions on prejudice were mainly Jurors #3 and #10. Juror #3 more based on prejudices of young men‚ particularly because he had such a horrendous relationship with his own son‚ I feel like this case really hit him close to home and really affected him in a personal way. I believe he let his feelings got in the way of his logical thinking and was practically projecting the anger he had towards his son towards the
Premium Jury Discrimination Thought
Twelve men meet in one room to discuss whether an eighteen-year-old boy is responsible for his father’s death. An initial vote was cast‚ where eleven men voted guilty and one juror voted not guilty. Ultimately‚ the jury decided that he was not guilty after deliberations. The twelve-person jury must decide if the boy is guilty or is there reasonable doubt to believe that he is not guilty. The jury must vote on guilty or not guilty. If there are disagreements‚ the jury must debate until they reach
Premium Jury Not proven Verdict
I associate part with the motivation behind why Nietzsche was so angry with Socrates may have been from a specific sentiment family relationship. In the event that Socrates was as he has been depicted‚ then he would have been an extremely shrewd individual‚ and prevalent regardless of being a dissident. These are qualities I think Nietzsche would have preferred. In any case‚ the bearing Socrates took these things were so in opposition to Nietzsche’s own perspectives‚ that perhaps it might be said
Premium Plato Philosophy Aristotle
the most fervent attackers of the defendant. He openly discriminates throughout the duration of the play‚ and makes no effort to disguise his bigotry. While in the beginning his passion for “smack[ing] them down” is tolerated by a number of the other men‚ ultimately his bias and stubbornness causes the group to reject him and his ill-informed ideas. The Tenth Juror refers to the defendant as “a born liar”‚ “a common‚ ignorant slob”‚ “a danger” “real trash” and “violent… vicious [and] ignorant” amongst
Premium Jury Not proven Verdict