In the drama “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, Juror 10 has a big impact on the play by finally bringing the 10 other jurors together, and having prejudiced views against people from the slums even though he is from the slums. Juror 10 has a big impact on the play by finally bringing most of the jurors to the same conclusion for the first time. In the play it says, “Well you don’t know about them? Listen to me! What are you doing?
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.
His prejudice is clear when he says that “I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say” when speaking about the boy (16). Juror Ten’s prejudice causes him to disregard all of the facts that are presented to him by Juror Eight that can prove that the accused is not guilty. Juror 10 allows his prejudice to blind him of the truth. That is until he is called out by his fellow jurors.
12 Angry Men is a play written by Reginald Rose. The play tells of a sixteen year old boy that was tried for premeditated first degree manslaughter and the twelve men on the jury who discussed the verdict. The unanimous decision ultimately would decide the boy’s fate of life or death. The twelve jurors all had very different and important parts in the discussion of the ruling. Rose incorporated dialogue between Juror 10 and the other jurors to contribute to the idea of prejudice obscuring the truth.
The Twelve Man Jury The Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal but are are they treated equally as well. In the play “Twelve Angry Men” written by Reginald Rose the main characters are Juror #8 Juror #3 Juror #10 Juror #7 and the Forman. The play is about how twelve men debate the guilt or innocence of a 19 year old boy. People's different prejudices and biases can affect their decisions and judgment.
Nothing is fair in life. The boy did not have a fair jury for several reasons. In the play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose a nineteen year old boy is accused of premeditated homicide for his father. Twelve jurors must make the groundbreaking decision that decides whether or not the boy goes off to execution. In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose the accused did not have a fair jury because the jurors messed up the voting, knew the boy’s criminal background, and had personal connections to the case.
The man testified as not guilty and said that he was watching a movie during that time. Twelve men were then picked to sit in a room and discuss if the man was guilty or not guilty of stabbing his father. Reginal Rose shows much conflict and characterization amongst all the jurors to make the play more eye-catching to viewers. One of the many jurors that showed justice is juror #8, he kept fighting for the man even when no one believed him, showing a lot of characterization. Mahatma Gandhi said that it takes courage to stand alone, juror #8 portrayed that role by voting against everyone instead of following the group.
"12 Angry Men" is a play by Reginald Rose that explores several themes related to the American justice system and the human condition. The play takes place in a New York City courtroom as jurors deliberate to reach a verdict in a murder case. Through the interactions and perspectives of the jurors, Rose sheds light on important themes such as the pressure of conformity, the influence of personal biases, the value of critical thinking, and the fragility of justice. One of the central themes of the play is the pressure of conformity.
The play 12 Angry Men is about a jury of twelve men that are given the task of deciding the fate, guilty or not guilty, of a young boy accused of murdering his father. The theme of standing up against the majority is very prevalent in this story because of the decisions some of the jurors make throughout the play. Juror 8 makes the decision to vote not guilty, he is the one and only juror in this play that decides to vote not guilty for the boy in the beginning. The other eleven jurors decide to vote guilty because of the evidence that they have been presented with. The act of Juror 8 standing against the majority of the other jurors about the case, voting not guilty, allows the jurors to thoroughly dissect the case, understanding it fully and thoughtfully before making their decision of guilty or not guilty.
This man may be a bit timid in part due to his old age, but his quiet nature also makes him insightful, noticing very specific details about witnesses that many others on the jury missed. He seems to come off as the most respectable and well mannered man out of the twelve. He 's the first to change his vote to not guilty, mostly to give Juror 8 a chance to make his case and out of respect for his motives in gambling for support. In talking about the older man that gave testimony it 's almost as though he 's talking about himself, revealing that he wants to be useful and to do something valuable, even if it 's just this once as a juror. As you may have noticed out of all the twelve men in the movie, each and everyone of them has unique personalities, that all at one point throughout the trial, played a very effective role in deciding this boy 's fate.
In 12 Angry Men, the movie begins in a courtroom where the case is being discussed by the judge, who seems fairly uninterested. The jurors are then instructed to enter the jury room to begin their deliberations. They take a vote and all but juror 8 vote guilty. The jurors react violently to the dissenting vote but ultimately decide to go around the table in hope of convincing the 8th juror.
Liberal ideology is the driving force in current political matters and has shaped the United States prevailing Democratic and Conservative parties. Liberalism is defined most recently as a “political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.” While these key focuses do reflect American’s general understanding of liberalism today, it differs quite a bit from its classical origin. Being a liberal in The United States is different than being liberal in many other countries. Classical liberalism, also known as American Conservatism, is still the majorities understanding of the ideology today.
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.
With selfish attitudes like this, it was unlikely that Juror 10 would be interested in the truth behind the evidence and the case itself. Hence, his racial prejudice was important in determining his vote. He believes the boy is guilty, not because the facts point to it, but because of the boy’s ethnicity. It is clear that Rose has constructed Juror 10 as a means of identifying that prejudice,
The movie “Twelve Angry Men” illustrates lots of social psychology theories. This stretched and attractive film, characterize a group of jurors who have to decide the innocence or guiltiness of an accused murder. They are simply deliberating the destiny of a Puerto Rican teenaged boy accused of murdering his father. Initially, as the film begins, except the juror Davis (Henry Fonda), all other jurors vote guilty. Progressively, the jurors begin trying to compromise on a point that everybody agree because the decision of the jury has to be unanimous.
