12 Angry Men
“It’s easy to stand in a crowd but it takes courage to stand alone” - Indian lawyer, non-violent, protest activist, and leader Mahatma Gandhi. This suggests that it's easy to follow a crowd and share their same opinion but it takes courage to have your own opinion.
This idea fits in the play “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, In this play there are 12 men chosen for jury duty to decide the fate of an 18 year old boy from a poor part of town who allegedly stabbed and killed his father. There were two witnesses that said he did it. One is an old man living on the floor below the boy. The other was a woman that said she saw the boy through the el train, stabbing his father. At first, all the jurors chose guilty without giving it a second thought and looking at the evidence. They thought he was guilty because they either didn't want to be there and wanted to be done with the trial or had their own opinions on his
…show more content…
In doing so, he displays the courage to stand alone. The reason behind his vote was that “There were eleven votes for guilty - it's not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.”(Act 1 page 15). Juror 8 reenacted how the old man that lived in the apartment under the boy and his father said he heard the boy scream and run down the stairs, he said that when he heard the scream he ran to his door and the old man said it took him 15 seconds to go to the door and open it and saw the boy run down the stairs. But when Juror 8 walked the same layout as the old man's apartment it took him 41 seconds. This proves that the old man isn't reliable. “And you’re trying to tell us he lied about the whole thing? ( said juror 12). No, he wouldn’t really lie. But perhaps he’d make himself believe that heard those words and recognized the boy’s face.” Said juror 9 (Act 2, p34). This means that there is reasonable
In the drama, “Twelve Angry Men,” by Reginald Rose. A 19 year old boy is a suspect in the murdering of his father. A jury of twelve men is left to decide his fate, guilty or not guilty. Juror 10 is biased and a hypocrite, which helped them reach a unanimous vote of not guilty.
As the jury was discussing the old man’s testimony, Juror 9, who is also an old man, thinks that he was lying in the testimony. This makes everyone
Ultimately, this leads to Juror 4 and Juror 8 to use their wits and reasoning to persuade the other jurors to choose between “guilty,” or “not guilty.” In the drama Twelve Angry Men, Rose indirectly characterizes Juror #4 as reasonable, in order
In a testament to both his own stubbornness and loyalty to the guilty cause, Juror #10 rebuffs every argument made by the not guilty party. Equally important, Juror #3 is willfully obtuse to the revelations made by the other jurors, marking him as the twelfth and final juror to vote not guilty. In the end, it takes the other men demanding his line of thinking for him to finally declare “not guilty” (Rose 115). Juror #3, being the main antagonist, is stuck in his pessimistic mindset and refuses to change his decision regarding the defendant’s fate. At times, it’s clear he is blowing off rationale for the sake of maintaining his guilty verdict.
Ian Marthaler Mrs. Coplin Composition 13 March 2023 Reasonable Doubt in The Justice System In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, twelve jury members must decide whether the son is guilty of murdering his father. They must unanimously agree on whether the son is guilty or not guilty based on the facts.
I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.” (13) In the movie, juror eight said basically the same exact statement with the exception of a few words, only instead of saying the boy was sixteen, he said that the boy was
Therefore, Juror Nine was able to conclude that “‘that no one can prove he wasn’t. He might have been at the movies and forgotten what he saw. It’s possible. If it’s perfectly normal for this gentleman to forget a few details, then it’s also perfectly normal for the boy. Being accused of murder isn’t necessarily supposed to give him an infallible memory.’”
They think this is going to be a slam dunk of a case and that this child is guilty plain and simple. That is all except for Juror number eight. He's the only supporting in favor of the young man that is on trial. After the second vote do we then see that Juror number nine follows the not guilty vote. He along with Juror number eight are convinced that something does not add up and that this young
He then decides to recreate what the old man said he did on the night on the murder. Juror #2 seems really interested in this argument and even volunteers to help with the time. In the beginning of Act 2, the jury decides to vote once more. At the time, Juror #2’s vote was “not
In Reginald Rose’s play, Twelve Angry Men, he depicts a story of 12 jurors quarreling to decide the fate of a 19-year-old boy who stands accused of murdering his father. Juror 3, a stubborn man characterized by his dogmatic and uncompromising personality, is one of those jurors. Rose uses Juror 3, along with his prejudices, past, and the clashing of opinions, to demonstrate the themes of personal accountability and diverse experiences. When debating if the boy should get a second chance because of his unfortunate past, Juror 3 mentions his son “When he was fifteen he hit me in the face” (Rose 20). Juror 3’s past illuminates how his personal biases affect his judgment toward the boy.
Throughout the whole play, Juror Ten remains stubborn in his decision that the defendant is guilty. Yet, at the end the finally sees that there is reasonable doubt (62). Interestingly enough, on the previous page Juror Ten is called out by Juror Four (60). The foreman also has some prejudice at the beginning of the case. He brings up another case that is similar to the one they are doing.
Throughout the play, the jurors are faced with the temptation to conform to the opinions of others, particularly the dominant figure of Juror 8. However, Juror 8's determination to consider all the evidence before
He fills in an X and hands the pencil to NO. 12.” (12 Angry Men). He thinks the only pieces of evidence are the witnesses because they said they saw the killing even though there was flaws within their testimony. After further investigation, he agrees the boy is not guilty. Then, juror number three persuades number twelve
Juror Ten announces his intentions very early in the play. He speaks loudly and forcefully from the beginning, clearly showing his racism and prejudice towards the boy. Juror 10 quickly votes guilty and asserts that the defendant cannot be believed because “they’re born liars”. Additionally, he claims that the “kids who crawl outa those places are real trash.”
In a New York City, an 18-year-old male from a slum is on a trial claiming that he is responsible for his father death by stabbing him After both sides has finished their closing argument in the trial, the judge asks the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty or not The judge informs the jury decided the boy is guilty, he will face a death sentence as a result of this trial The jurors went into the private room to discuss about this case. At the first vote, all jurors vote guilty apart from Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), he was the only one who voted “Note Guilty” Juror 8 told other jurors that they should discuss about this case before they put a boy into a death sentence