Observe a Jury or Court Trial Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Author’s Note Observe a Jury or Court Trial This court case involves a serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, convicted of killing about 17 men between 1978 and 1991 (Jeffrey Dahmer - Full Trial - Serial Killer, 2012). The jury is composed of seven men and seven women who were to determine if Jeffrey Dahmer was guilty of the multiple murders. The jury begins by ordering for a three week sanity test to determine if Jeffrey Dahmer was sane when he committed the acts.
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.
In Reginald Rose’s play “12 Angry Men” we meet two completely different characters, juror eight who is the protagonist of the play, and juror three the antagonist. How did Rose write the scenes to create suspense between the characters? In this essay we will discuss how in three of the scenes from the play that these two characters go head to head on certain topics. In the first scene we see the whole jury room watching eight recreate the old man getting out of bed and going to the door which was later counted to thirty-nine seconds.
After watching 12 Angry Men, I was very inspired by juror 8 ' argument techniques. His eye contact, body language, tone, the persuasive techniques he used like induction, pathos, ethos and logos should be studied and analyzed in a very detailed, precise way. These factors were strong enough to change 11 angry men 's mind and to vote not guilty, even juror 3 who is the most stubborn. 12 Angry Men 's message toward individuals and the society as a whole is to think once and twice before judging, how to have a successful, convincing argument and most importantly, it encourage everyone to stand up for your opinion. One of the reasons why everyone should speak up is sometimes other people are thinking the same way, but they are not brave enough to express their opinion.
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.
Mobashshir Arshad Ansari DM 16230 The movie “12 Angry Men” is a court drama based movie. The entire film takes place within a small New York City jury room, on "the hottest day of the year," as 12 men debate the fate of a young defendant charged with murdering his father. Most courtroom movies feel it necessary to end with a clear-cut verdict. But "12 Angry Men" never states whether the defendant is innocent or guilty if innocent then who is guilty.
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.
Twelve different men with all different attitudes in the same room is nothing but bad news. Most of the men just want to say the kid is guilty, so they can go home and the kid can get whatever punishment he has come for him. Only one of the guys wants to see justice for the kid. The author wants to show that there will always be multiple opinions. Everyone will start to get frustrated with each other because everyone has a different mindset.
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.
Group think According to Janis, who coined the term; groupthink “occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (1972, p. 9) further group think often leads to a decrease in the mental efficacy perception of reality and moral judgement, as personages find themselves in a group system that seeks high cohesion and unanimity which delimits the motivation of the individual to realistically appraise alternate courses of action (Janis, 1972). A common trait of a collective experiencing this phenomenon, is an inclination to take irrational decision making in addition to members of the group being similar in background and further being insulated from external insight. Comparably the singularity of groupthink is present in the film 12 Angry Men, and appears anecdotally, early on the film, present in the expected unanimous vote of ‘guilty,’ that will send the defendant to the electric chair. Invulnerability Literature surrounding the concept of group think is greatly rooted in the writings of Janis.
In the movie “12 Angry Men”, various Ways of Knowing are identified by the TOK course such as emotions, perception and reason. The film demonstrates the role that emotion plays in the aim of knowledge, if we can truly trust our sense to perceive what the world really is, and is arguing through reasoning significant? Emotion plays a role in the search for the truth whether it is the aim for new knowledge or the jury’s search for a solution in the case. “12 Angry Men” displays how emotions can aid our judgment. When the juror’s expressed outrage, it was because they had heard something that they didn’t approve of therefore, they expressed an emotion that reflected their opinion.
‘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.
The judge declares the “Murder in the first degree—premeditated homicide—is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts. One man is dead. The life of another is at stake. If there is a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused … then you must declare him not guilty. If, however, there is no reasonable doubt, then he must be found guilty.
People act upon what they think. Within “12 Angry Men”, all of the jurors have an opinion but some voice their more than others. One juror in particular, Juror Ten, voices his opinion about the boy in question. Repeatedly throughout the play, Juror Ten makes many thoughtless and hurtful comments about a certain kind of people. It is clear that Juror Ten’s uncompromising belief that the accused is guilty is because of his dislike for the boy’s race.
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
