Today I’ll be ready some dialogue from the movie 12 Angry Men. It is one of my favorite movies. The plot is following the closing arguments in a murder trial, the 12 members of the jury must deliberate, with a guilty verdict meaning death for the accused, an inner-city teen. As the dozen men try to reach a unanimous decision while sequestered in a room, one juror (Henry Fonda) casts considerable doubt on elements of the case. Personal issues soon rise to the surface, and conflict threatens to derail the delicate process that will decide one boy's fate. I’ll start by saying what the judge said in the opening scene of the movie.
Judge: To continue, you've listened to a long and complex case, murder in the first degree. Premeditated murder
…show more content…
The seam of his jacket was split under his arm. Did you notice it? I mean, to come to court like that. He was a very old man with a torn jacket and he walked very slowly to the stand. He was dragging his left leg and trying to hide it because he was ashamed. I think I know him better than anyone here. This is a quiet, frightened, insignificant old man who has been nothing all his life, who has never had recognition, his name never in the newspapers. Nobody knows him, nobody quotes him, nobody seeks his advice after seventy-five years. That's a very sad thing, to be nothing. A man like this needs to be recognized, to be listened to, to be quoted just once. This is very important. It would be so hard for him to recede into the …show more content…
I'm saying it's possible that the boy lost the knife and that someone else stabbed his father with a similar knife. It's possible.
He then proceeds to take out an identical knife the the murder weapon that was supposed to be one of a kind. Juror 8 then asks Juror 3 after he has been quiet for a while what he supposed happen? Juror 3 replies with:
Juror 3: I'm not used to supposing. I'm just a working man. My boss does the supposing. 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. Juror 10 who was one of the men who voted guilty says he’d vote innocent in ordering to get out of there. Juror 11 thinks this is unethical and says:
Juror 11: If you want to vote not guilty, then do it because you're convinced the man is not guilty - not because you've had enough. And if you think he's guilty, then vote that way, or don't you have the guts to do what you think is