ipl-logo

12 Angry Men Rhetorical Analysis

642 Words3 Pages

Rational or irrational? Not guilty or guilty? This was the key question between the jurors throughout this movie. During the film a young boy gets accused for stabbing his father to death. In “Twelve Angry Men” we get introduced to twelve jurors made up of men with different backgrounds. One of the most critical part of the movie was how the personalities and experiences of these men influenced their majority vote of guilty. Juror number three, juror number ten, and juror number eleven, were three of the most influential men during the debate. Their past experiences and personal bias lead their opinions and thoughts to have an affect on their decisions through out their aguments. Therefore, this shows how a person feelings are reflected in his/hers thoughts, behavior, and opinion. Juror number three, is very biased against the young boy, and this affects all of his thoughts and actions during the case. During the movie it was hard to understand why this man was judging this boy with hate. Later we found out that this young bout reminded juror number three of his …show more content…

“Us” being people living around the rich or middle-class areas, and “them” being people with different race, having a different skin color, or being born and raised in the slums. It is also because of this stereotype that he has a bias against this boy on trial, the young boy was born in the slums and was a victim of domestic violence since the age of five.(1and2) Also, the boy was of a Hispanic descent which made the juror put the boy under his discriminatory description of a criminal. This is proven when juror number ten rants: “They don't need any real big reason to kill someone, either you know, they get drunk, and bang, someone's lying there in the gutter... most of them, its like they have no feelings(2).” This juror, is also one of the last ones to change his vote to not guilty, because of his

Show More
Related
443 Words | 2 Pages

The congressional procedure outlined in the Constitution for impeachment and removal is an effective check on the president because it reinforces the idea of checks and balances. This can be seen in the Federalist papers, especially Federalist 51. It can also be seen in Brutus 1, where concerns about the abuse of executive power are stated. In Federalist 51, James Madison argues for the necessity of checks and balances to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. He highlights the importance of each branch being able to check on each other, making sure that liberty is reinforced.

Read More
560 Words | 3 Pages

He argues with juror eight to the point where juror three enragedly screams “I will kill him!” Just because juror three says he will kill juror eight does not mean he actually will. Making juror eight's point clear that when the defendant screamed he was going to kill his father that he may not have really meant it. Creating reasonable doubt for six men, exactly what eight wanted. Juror twelve states that the debate was getting nowhere.

Read More
1419 Words | 6 Pages

This is also the significant emotional event for this character. Throughout the trial he takes everything very personally and even contradicts himself arguing himself into a corner at times. The man he turned his son into turns against him resulting in a fight after which his son leaves home and number three not seeing him in two years. Juror number three has a personality trait that is closely linked and reinforces his locus of control. He is hard-nosed, reluctant to change and generally cynical of anything other than what he would thought himself.

Read More
344 Words | 2 Pages

12 Angry Men Homar Cruz 1A In the act 12 Angry Men the author wanted to show the reader that jurors are having irresponsible behaviors, without juror 8 the boy would’ve been unfairly convicted. Also you can make an inference that the boy's attorney didn’t have the capacity to defend him in court. For instance, when all jurors arrived to the courtroom the clerk decided on a vote. Mainly all jurors raised their hand, wanted to get out of their, wanted to go watch their concert.

Read More
171 Words | 1 Pages

In Twelve Angry Men, the award winning three act drama written by Reginald Rose, each juror is told to reconsider a reasonable doubt in deciding the fate of a young man accused of murdering his own father. With little exception, each juror bring his own personal biases and preconceptions. However, in this rollercoaster of a drama, no other juror stands out as much as Juror Three. Though other jurors may occasionally admit a reasonable doubt, Juror Three is strictly motivated by his superiority complex, impatience, and personal grudges. Juror Three often believes his opinions matter more than others and only appreciates those who agree with him.

Read More
774 Words | 4 Pages

The movie ‘12 Angry Men’ deals with a jury of twelve men, responsible for coming to a verdict about the fate of an illiterate teenager who was brought up in the slums and could be punished severely if found guilty of murdering his father with a switchblade knife. They have to make a unanimous decision, either guilty or not guilty. They are quite literally caged up in a small, claustrophobic room on a rather hot day. Through the course of the film the inner miseries, opinions and struggles of the jurors are brought out. Their decisions are extremely biased initially either due to the background of the boy or what each of them holds as morally correct i.e. the sheer act in question of a boy killing his father is unthought-of no matter what the situation.

Read More
815 Words | 4 Pages

It is now your duty to separate the facts from the fancies. One mans dead another mans life is at stake. If theres a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused a reasonable doubt then you must bring me a verdict of not guilty. If however there is no reasonable doubt then you must in good conscience find the accused guilty. However you decide your verdict must be unanimous.

Read More
718 Words | 3 Pages

and he has ball game tickets his concern was whether the case will end before the match our not he switch his vote to “not guilty” just to end the deliberation 8th Juror an

Read More
803 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More
981 Words | 4 Pages

Davis, Juror Eight, is the main character, protagonist, and was responsible for the boy's life in this film. He is an architect who was the first to vote "not guilty". Voting that way takes a lot of courage, because all the men just want to get out of there and not

Read More
814 Words | 4 Pages

‘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.

Read More
721 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
1404 Words | 6 Pages

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

Read More
761 Words | 4 Pages

The conflict derives from Juror 10’s hate speech against the people of the slums, which induced negative emotions in the other jurors that led them to silent protest , turning away from Juror 10, not wanting to continue the discussion with him. Juror 10 depicts the people of the slums as dangerous,violent, and vicious which ultimately lead to him concluding that, “they don’t need any big reason to kill someone either.” The other jurors, appalled by his hate speech, fell silent, stood up, and turned away from him. They simply wanted him to keep quiet and stop his hate speech as it was making them uncomfortable.

Read More
645 Words | 3 Pages

Character Analysis of Juror #11 In the film 12 Angry Men, Juror #11 is seen as a man with a sense of justice, fairness, and logic. Even though he does not play a major role in the film, his character cannot be ignored. He played an essential role in the defense for the defendant’s innocence and promoted fairness during the jury’s debate on whether or not the defendant was guilty. Whenever he spoke during the debate, his comments and questions were not provocative like the others.

Read More

More about 12 Angry Men Rhetorical Analysis

Related Topics

Open Document