As the play went on, Juror Eight started proving how the boy was innocent. In the end Juror Eight changed all the other juror’s minds, except for Juror Three’s. Juror Three ended up changing his vote, not because they changed his mind but because he gave into peer pressure. He still had his prejudice influenced decision, he only gave in because he didn't want it to be a hung jury. Another example, from the same play, is Juror Eight.
Sydney Price Ms. Teeling English I 20 January 2023 The Danger of Detachment in Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men What would you do if you sat in a cramped, sweaty room for hours with all the pressure on you and your fellow jurors to make one decision: the life or death of a young boy? The jurors of Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men face this very predicament, forced to decide on the innocence of a boy on trial for murder.
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.
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.
In Twelve Angry Men by Sherman Sergel and Reginald Rose, Juror Ten believes the boy is innocent throughout most of the play because of his perspective and opinion of people from the boys same ethnicity. In Act 1 the Jurors start to sit down and talk about how harsh the crime was when Juror Ten says, ‘“A kid kills his father. Bing! Just like that.
This is a very fine boy.” (20) This juror is joking around at a time that is not very appropriate; they are not taking this case seriously enough and need to be taught how to act. The jurors in Twelve Angry Men are not responsible and should not be able to keep these very important jobs; these jurors are very unfair and have a lot of
The more they talked about the testimonies, the more they realized that things didn't add up. At the start of the play, almost everyone except Eight voted the boy guilty. If Eight had not said to talk about it, the boy would have been sent off to die for a crime he didn't commit. The only reason the jurors changed their votes in the first place is that they felt like something was off with the testimonies. The men talking amongst themselves also influenced their vote change.
Jury duty is often regarded by most of society as a dull and tiresome obligation. Perhaps one would be inclined to change their assessment if jury duty meant you and eleven other men were the only thing standing between a boy and the electric chair. The teleplay Twelve Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, tells the story of a 1950’s court case wherein a young man, under suspicion of murdering his father, faces the death penalty. The script centers around the twelve men of the jury as they decide whether or not the boy will live or die. As tensions start to run higher, the jurors get into intense arguments, sometimes letting outside biases overtake them.
Twelve Angry Men “A person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” In the play, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a nineteen years old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence were presented, the three that are weak include the one of a kind knife, the old men who heard the words “I’m going to kill you!” and the woman who is in question because of her glasses. Based on these, the boy is not guilty.
Jury duty is often seen as an option people are seeking to avoid at times. However, jury duty should not be seen as a negative, but rather jury duty should be seen as a chance for a civilian to do their part in contributing to justice. Twelve Angry Men is mainly about twelve men coming together to discuss and argue whether a young man should be put on the death penalty, the play continuously makes it a point to make the jurors have a hard time deciding a final verdict. Jurors argued their side of what occurred with the defendant and the victim, some would change their answers or few would make a point of trying to convince the other jurors why the defendant is guilty. As the act progresses, the jurors finally realize one important detail of
This process continues throughout the course of the movie, and each juror’s biases is slowly revealed. Earlier through the movie, it is already justifiable to label juror 10 as a bigoted racist as he reveals strong racist tendencies against the defendant, stating his only reason for voting guilty is the boy’s ethnicity and background. . Another interesting aspect of this 1957 film is the “reverse prejudice” portrayed by juror
12 Angry Men is a movie about twelve jurors who discussing about a murder case of a teenage boy. The play is set in New York City Court of Law jury room in 1957. The decision to sentence the boy to death penalty lies upon these twelve gentlemen. Although, eleven of them found him guilty based on some ambiguous evidence, one man voted not guilty and started a promotion amongst them. This man is the one we should call the hero of the day since he pointed out all the missing points of the case leads to the innocent of the teenage boy.
The justice system that relies on twelve individuals reaching a life-or-death decision has many complications and dangers. The play Twelve Angry Men, by Reiginald Rose, illustrates the dangers of a justice system that relies on twelve people reaching a life-or-death decision because people are biased, they think of a jury system as an inconvenience, and many people aren’t as intelligent as others. The first reason why Reiginald illustrates dangers is because people can be biased or they can stereotype the defendant. The Jurors in Twelve Angry Men relate to this because a few of them were biased and several of them stereotyped the defendant for being from the slums. The defendant in this play was a 19 year old kid from the slums.
This story was taken place in New York. This story is about twelve jurors that have a very thought through and heated discussion about a young man that had supposedly killed his father with a switchblade knife. There are two witnesses in the story, one is an old man that lived in the same tenement as the boy did, and the other was a lady that lived in a building across the railroad tracks from the boys home. In the including of the “Twelve Angry Men” the literature syllabus for high school students has many advantages and disadvantages.
‘Twelve Angry Men’ written by Reginald Rose, is based on the story of a jury who have to come together to determine the fate of a young boy accused to have murdered his own father. Initially, eleven of the jurors vote not guilty with one of the juror being uncertain of the evidence put before them. As the men argue over the different pieces of evidence, the insanity begins to make sense and the decision becomes clearer as they vote several other times. Rose creates drama and tension in the jury room, clearly exploring through the many issues of prejudice, integrity and compassion, in gaining true justice towards the accused victim. These aspects have been revealed through three character who are Juror 10, Juror 8 and Juror 3.
