Conviction Conviction is when you make a formal declaration that someone is guilty of a criminal offense. In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a young boy is accused of murdering his father. The Jurors all think that he is guilty except for the eighth juror. The eighth juror has to try to convince the other jurors not to convict the boy. The jurors have to use someone's word to decide if the boy was guilty or not. Some of the jurors used personal experiences to judge if the boy would kill his father. The witnesses said that they saw and heard him kill his father. The boy was interrogated by the police but, he did not have a perfect memory. Someone's word should not be enough to put someone in the electric chair. Many people use a bad experience to judge someone else. In the play the third juror talks about his kid. The third juror said “It's the kids, the way they are nowadays. Angry! Hostile! You can not do a dang thing with them. Just the way they talk to you.” (17) He is saying that all kids act the same. We all know that no one is the same. The eighth juror says “It’s not your boy. He’s somebody else.” The third juror thinks about it and decides “ Not guilty.” (72) He realizes that he is comparing the boy on trial with his son. He knows that is not fair and he has a reasonable doubt. He was judging the boy …show more content…
The ninth juror said “He was dragging his left leg and trying to hide it because he was ashamed.” (36) The old Man could not make it to the door in time to see the boy run down the stairs. The tenth juror said “Here’s a women who’s lying in bed and can’t sleep. She’s dying with the heat. Know what I mean? Anyway, she looks out the window and right across the street she sees the kid stick the knife into his father. (15) She was not wearing her glasses because she was trying to fall asleep. She would not be able to be certain that who she saw was the boy. They both could not be certain that it was the
In the play, Twelve angry men, by Reginald Rose, was about a trial to see if a boy was a murderer. It showed reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in a criminal trial. A piece of evidence is the el train and the knife. The boy bought the murder weapon the night of the murder, he also showed it to three friends.
Always look at everything half-empty as they would normally look completely full. “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a play which consists of three acts and played by fifteen people. The play is about twelve men on a jury for a case of first-degree murder. A nineteen year old boy is accused for the murder of his father. All the evidence and jurors say he’s guilty except for Juror 8.Now with everyone against him,Juror 8 tries to see the boy’s case through using reasonable doubt while another juror - Juror 3 - insists on trying to prove that the boy is guilty.
There is a similarity between the play of Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose and Trifles regarding the idea of investigating the evidences. Eleven men who are sure the murder is guilty have made up their minds before they have even considered that the killer might be innocent. But, Juror eight gets them to review the evidence more carefully. As a group, the judges developed visions that even most jurors changed their views when the validity of the evidence was shown to be a questionable. There is a similarity between the play of Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose and Trifles regarding the idea of investigating the evidences.
The art of literature is held in the hands of authors, they hold the power to create a story and depict to their readers in any way they choose. Stories are like clay they can be made into a variety of objects, yet the way one chooses to shape the clay is the object someone perceives. The same can be told for the genre of mystery, authors often take on different perspectives that create unique ways of figuring out a mystery. In the novel, The Maltese Falcon, Dashiell Hammett writes from a detective’s perspective. This allows the reader to have knowledge of all the facts and read from an unbiased perspective.
The U.S. justice system is a concept that has come under scrutiny many times over the 200-plus years of its existence, but which still exists in much the same form today as when it was first devised. “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a theatrical drama that portrays many of the merits and faults of the jury-based judicial system. Some of the pros that are shown include how the input of many different people and backgrounds can result in a greater truth being uncovered, and how the voice of even a single man can be heard and considered by all jury members. Some cons that the play illustrates include how there can instances in which jury members merely go with the immediate popular opinion on the verdict, whether because they are susceptible to peer pressure or merely because they’d rather the case be over with as quickly as possible. Rose himself seems to be generally in favor of the current U.S. justice system, as the characters who represent the negative aspects of the system are shown to be hateful and irrational men, while the opposite is true for the people who represent the system’s more positive qualities.
All of the other jurors know there is reasonable doubt, but up until the very last line Juror 3 sticks to his strong opinion of the boy being guilty, and finally angrily yells, “Not guilty!” This was only after he realizes no one is coming back to his side. Juror 3 is
The novel Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose includes conflicts on a jury duty of twelve white men with very different backgrounds and experiences. In order for someone to be convicted the jury must unanimously reach a guilty verdict. There must be enough evidence against the defendant to prove he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt This is just one of many examples that shows how even the slightest hesitation can make an enormous change on the upshot in many different environments in both court and life. Therefore; doubt is the most powerful asset in the play. Doubt slowly creeps itself into the minds of the jurors, slowly growing stronger and stronger as more of them begin to doubt the boy’s innocence.
Do you know how tough it is for one person to convince 11 different men that one boy is not guilty? Juror number 8 a very broad-minded man has successfully changed all 11 Jurors votes to not guilty in the given murder case. On todays topic, I will be talking about how juror # 8 wanted to learn more about the murder case before giving his final opinion. Second, how he proved that all the evidence given was not accurate. Finally, how he managed to stand all alone in the begging of the story, and change the thought of every individual juror.
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.’”
The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar
The film, 12 angry men is about 12 members of the jury that is trying to solve a trial of a murder. There is a juror named, Henry Fonda. Throughout the argument the jurors were really biased. There were many attributions in the film. One of it is when Henry Fonda made the point when the boy got pushed around all his life and he was treated really poorly.
Juror: It’s not your boy. He’s someone else. 4th Juror: Let him live.
Juror are randomly chosen citizens brought in to watch and interpret the case, and break it down and decide whether the defendant is guilty or not. Reginald Rose´s 12 Angry Men was written after while watching real murder trial it inspired him to reveal the positives and negatives of Jury deliberations. While bench trial have strong merits, trial by Jury is more effective for many reasons including,the diversity and variety of backgrounds the jurors bring, the increase chance of discovering the truth, as well as, the fact that Jurors are usually more caring then a Judge who may be calloused from previous experiences is why trial by Jury is the fairest way to decide a criminal case. A significant advantage trial by jury offer is the diversity and variety in backgrounds the Jurors. While the Jurors were discussing the stab wound Juror Five presents the relevant the point with his jurors saying, ¨ You don 't hold this of knife that way.
Juror number three the only member who believe that the young man was not getting a fair trial with that, during the initial round of voting cast a not guilty verdict. With the use of rounds and dyads he encouraged members to discuss the case clearly and objectively examining pieces of evidences used in court. Though other jurors were not his favor however, he remained adamant that the case be combed thoroughly. I believe that juror number eight personal characteristics and logical reasoning allowed him to bring the other members of the jury to his level and change their mindset, thinking and decision-making process ruling in favor of a unanimous 12-0 not guilty verdict.
But I'll try one. Suppose you talk us all outa this and the kid really did knife his father? To this point Juror 8 had been the voice of reason, but this time a notable statement was made by a man who has said nothing almost the entire time. At this time another tally was taken and the vote total this time was 3 guilty to 9 innocent.