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
INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING 25-Mar-13 Ghufran Ul Haque 12 Angry Men Inductive and Deductive reasoning with short explanation * Inductive Reasoning: 1. The boy had a motive for the killing‚ you know‚ the beating ad all. So if he didn’t do it then who did? Who else had the motive? Explanation: This is inductive reasoning‚ in this phrase the 6th juror talk straight to the 8th juror who is in favor of the guilty boy. So
Premium Inductive reasoning Abductive reasoning Scientific method
Twelve Angry Men highlights the importance of seeing things from more than one perspective. Discuss. Reginald Rose’s play Twelve Angry Men emphasises the importance of seeing things from more than one perspective. Set in a New York jury room in 1957‚ Rose highlights how important it is that the jury discuss all of the evidence from the case in detail and from multiple angles. Representative of this notion is the 8th Juror who is willing to acknowledge alternative views or interpretations. From
Premium Jury
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
1. What differences in values and beliefs could you see demonstrated in this film and how did this influence the decisions which were made? Give at least three examples I saw values and beliefs from one extreme to the other. Example 1 – It was automatically assumed‚ by juror 10‚ that because the defendant lived in the ‘slums’ he was violent and guilty. His personal beliefs affected his vote instead of the facts and evidence. He seem to value social status and beliefs more than the truth. Example
Free Jury Not proven Verdict
The 1957 film Twelve Angry Men serves as an excellent example demonstrating sources of power and influence tactics in leadership. At the start‚ the Foreman of the Jury sits at the head of the table and assigns each juror a number. He is using a legitimate source of power because he holds the position title and serves as a formal authoritative figure for the jury. The Foreman also facilitates the initial voting and discussion on the reasons why each jury member felt that way. The jury was almost unanimous
Premium Jury Leadership Emotion
In 12 Angry Men the movie it can be observed the different methods of influence that a person uses to impact the behaviors of others. This is a case in which a decision was apparent to be reached easily‚ all the jurors would presume the defendant guilty of murdering his father‚ but only one takes an exception and votes as not guilty. It is necessary that all jurors vote unanimously for a verdict to be reached‚ and when juror #8 votes non-guilty‚ he forces all jurors to discuss the case. All jurors
Premium Verdict Not proven Question
Through our discussion‚ we decided to choose proposed dabate1‚ 2 & 6. Following are our responses for these questions. Proposed debate 1: Is there a manager(s) in the group? Is there a leader(s) in the group? If yes‚ discuss and describe them vis-à-vis our class discussions and course readings. Through our discussion‚ we think there are three leaders and one manager in this movie‚ the manager is the 1st judger‚ and the 3rd‚ 8th & 10th judgers are the leaders. The following is our description for
Premium Jury Not proven Boy
Twelve Angry Men 1.How do you think you might have acted as a juror in this case ? How would you had interacted ? I think i would have started off with being calm but stressed i mean I would probably feel very burdened‚ because just by choosing one option you can change someones life. And as fas as interacting goes i would be casual but if something unexpected happens and i do have an outburst then it happens every one loses it at some point. 2.At the beginning of this movie the jurors
Premium Not proven Jury Murder
12 Angry Men Adeshola Adewale Juror #1 Juror number one uses Formal Reasoning. He first uses this when he calls for an initial vote amongst the other jurors to see where the votes stand. This is considered formal reasoning because he used a procedure that would get a guaranteed solution‚ being everyone’s decision. Juror one also uses mental laziness. He never states a clearly formed opinion about his decision of not guilty or guilty. He relies on other to state their opinions so he can fly under
Premium Critical thinking Cognition John Cavil