12 ANGRY MEN 1. Choose two characters from the Jury. In separate numbers‚ examine and analyze the two juror’s reasoning. a. Check if his reasoning fulfils the standards of thinking. b. Identify some errors in his thinking. c. What do you think led the juror to commit these errors in his thinking with respect to the case he is judging? Jury # 9 Jury number 9 was the old man seated next to Henry Fonda at the table. These 12 different jurors were seated at a long table to decide
Premium Reasoning Jury Grand jury
Insight Text Guide Anica Boulanger-Mashberg Twelve Angry Men Reginald Rose 00_TG_TAM_v3.indd 1 9/09/10 11:12 AM Copyright Insight Publications 2010 First published in 2010 by Insight Publications Pty Ltd ABN 57 005 102 983 219 Glenhuntly Road Elsternwick VIC 3185 Australia Tel: +61 3 9523 0044 Fax: +61 3 9523 2044 Email: books@insightpublications.com.au www.insightpublications.com.au Copying for educational purposes The Australian Copyright Act 1968 (the Act) allows
Premium Jury Court Verdict
Power of CommunicationEk Ruka Hua Faisla Elegance of language may not be in the power of all of us; but simplicity and straightforwardness are. Write much as you would speak; speak as you think. If with your inferior‚speak no coarser than usual; if with your superiors‚ no finer. Be what you say; and‚ within therules of prudence‚ say what you are. The Power of Communication comes from knowing the right questions to ask and practicinggood listening skills. The secret weapon of power negotiators
Premium Jury Verdict Decision making
brought up influences who you are. As he done this he kept on reminding the jurors that the boy was raised in the “slums”. This really hit close to home for juror 6 as he was brought up in the slums as well. Which ultimately let to the unanimous verdict of not guilty. Through juror 10 and 6‚ Rose sets fourth the injustices of classism in the american justice system. In conclusion‚ Rose expounds the corruption of the american justice system. He sets forward the gamble of being tried as someone who
Premium Murder Jury Capital punishment
persuasive in his arguments for a not guilty verdict. He was able to point out the inconsistencies of eyewitnesses and the lackadaisical representation of the court appointed attorney provided. The turning point for juror number eight’s argument came when he reenacted the scene of the murder to prove that the eyewitness could not have made the journey from his bedroom to the hallway in fifteen seconds. The jury came back with a not guilty verdict due to the unrelenting juror who believed in the
Premium Jury Regulatory Focus Theory Verdict
something such as a young boy’s life should not be decided upon within an hour and encouraged the men to take more time by gambling for support. In Davis’ luck‚ another gentlemen wanted to hear more. Throughout the back and forth‚ guilty/not guilty verdict‚ Davis tries to put himself in the young boy’s place‚ he offers this idea up to the other men saying firmly‚ “How long would you like for a jury to converse if you were faced with the electric chair?” After he says this the other men come to an abrupt
Premium Verdict Jury Morality
convictions are ruled out. Both magistrates and jurors are members of the public and do not get paid for going to court. However‚ both can claim expenses for any earnings lost during the time they spent in court. Both parties make their decisions and verdicts on the facts presented to them. Not only this but both can decided whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. Magistrates & Solicitors- Both
Free Judge Jury Law
circumstances in which heat and angst drive them to push for a guilty verdict‚ despite the clear evidence of reasonable doubt presented through the trials facts. In the end‚ Henry Fonda’s character gets the other jurors to realize that all of the evidence is circumstantial and they present a not guilty verdict to the judge. This film presents a situation in which it becomes clear that previous prejudices can influence the verdict that certain jurors hand down. It is difficult for people to become unbiased
Premium Jury Verdict
past and juror7’s ignorant attitude towards the case ultimately affect their perspective about the facts and evidence presented in the case. As a result‚ these factors not only obscure the truth but also make it hard for the jury to reach a just verdict and threaten the credibility of the jury system. It’s a scary but a true reality that prejudice has the power to overshadow the facts and evidence‚ which can prevent jurors from seeing the truth. From the start of the play‚ juror 4 votes the defendant
Premium Jury Oedipus Sophocles
guilty.” That juror‚ who is known in the script as Juror #8 is the protagonist of the play. As the tempers flare and the arguments begin‚ the audience learns about each member of the jury. And slowly but surely‚ Juror #8 guides the others toward a verdict of “Not Guilty.” The main conflict between the two is that juror Number 8 did his
Premium Jury Not proven Verdict