ipl-logo

12 Angry Men Sparknotes

412 Words2 Pages

The play 12 Angry Men begins in a room of 12 jurors as they discuss the guilt of a boy charged with the murder of his father. The facts of the case have been laid out, and each Juror already has decided how they feel. The foreman, a man of authority, not exceptionally bright, tends to believe the young boy is guilty. Ten other jurors decide to monotonously agree with him, despite their either opinionated, hesitant thesis. For instance, Juror number three, a narrow, humourless man, and Juror number two, a dubious, afraid persona, both determine guilty. The final "score" is 11-1 guilty, bravely led by Juror number Eight, who apparently concluded the boy did not murder his own father. Juror number Eight, the only exception, begs the question, "Why did he choose the different path?". Being a man of honesty, of fairness who always seeks the truth, one could sensibly justify his many arguments defending the boy and the considerably unreasonable amount of time he needed to word them. Additionally, he is a quiet man who does not see life as one-sided. He is fond of exploring all perspectives of a story, and he does no different …show more content…

Many end up admiring Eight's perseverance, determination to uncover the truth, and thoughtful nature. However, it has frequently been asked whether he might be the only one to differ, solely because he has something to hide and knows something the others do not. By his incredibly defensive view, one could conclude that he was the killer. He constantly describes the boy's awful childhood and background with pity and has a peculiar perspective on the knife used. He immediately presents a weapon identical to the one used at the crime scene, bought in the same neighbourhood of the accused night before. Moreover, he insisted the father deserved to die since he beat his son daily, hence his insistence that the boy had a visible motive to resort to

Show More
Related
726 Words | 3 Pages

When asked why he voted not guilty, juror eight stated “Look, this boy has been kicked around all his life. You know---living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. He spent a year in and a half in an orphanage while his father served a jail term for forgery. That’s not a very good head start. He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years.

Read More
659 Words | 3 Pages

Juror number 8 argues that the case should be further deliberated considering a young boys’ life is at stake. Some of the jurors believe that the constant abuse the boy received from his father caused him to kill him. At this point most of the jurors were getting irritated so juror number 8 requested another vote be taken, which we would not participate in. If the 11 jurors all voted guilty then juror number 8 would also change his vote too guilty, but if another juror votes not guilty the 12 men will stay and discuss the case further. Juror number 9 wanted to hear

Read More
997 Words | 4 Pages

Juror #2 finds it “interesting that he’d find a knife exactly like the one the boy bought”(24). Afterwards, the 8th Juror suggests that the old man, one of the witnesses, lied because of the point Juror #3 tried to make. Juror #3 says, that the old man “[ran ] to his door and [saw ] the kid tearing down the stairs fifteen seconds after the killing”(42). Juror #8 then suggests that the old man could not have done that because of his stroke.

Read More
679 Words | 3 Pages

However, he finally acknowledged his fault and wanted to judge himself as a criminal. Reader can know he has conflict with himself. He was a person who wanted to be a good man, but his fear stimulated his violence.

Read More
755 Words | 4 Pages

Though juror 3 has been adamant on the guilt of the young boy it is safe to say that this case meant more to him because the relationship with his son is similar to the relationship between the boy and the father. Since his personal vendetta causes him to forcefully accuse the boy of murder it leaves the jury 11-1 in favor of not guilty. Since carefully reviewing the movie it becomes very prevalent that there has not been enough substantial evidence to convict the boy of murder. Furthermore, with the usage of group think all of the men, accept juror 3 are able to put their pride aside and vote what they truly believe the verdict should be, which is not guilty. Though, one of the more pragmatic points in the film happens after juror 3 becomes infuriated after realizing that all of the men are voting not guilty.

Read More
682 Words | 3 Pages

Biases are like mechanical pencils. One’s biases may be hidden, but enough pushes will lead them into revealing their hidden prejudices. Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a play that focuses on crime and drama. It tells the story of twelve jurors working together to decide on the fate of a young boy. Through conflicts, agreements, and biases, they must come together to decide on one thing: whether the boy is guilty or innocent.

Read More
906 Words | 4 Pages

Because of the old guy, the woman, and the knife in the play Twelve Angry Men, I think the kid is innocent. In the play 12 Angry Men, I believe the boy is not guilty. An old man with a cane who lived on the 2nd floor right underneath the room where the murder occurred heard loud noises. The old man ran to the door to see what was going on, The old man swore that it took him 15 seconds to see what was going on from walking from his bedroom to his front door.

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
862 Words | 4 Pages

This demonstrates his reaction to learning, his feelings and willingness to become like a person, demonstrating that his murders were not the work of a pure evil

Read More
591 Words | 3 Pages

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.

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
851 Words | 4 Pages

Juror eight held his ground and convince the men to look over all of the evidence. Juror eight brought out the files, acted out different situations and the murder scene. The men went back and forth for hours fighting about whether or not the boy was guilt of killing his father Slowly one by one the jurors changed their mind from guilty to not guilty. All but juror three changed their mind, he was the last one standing so the vote was 11-1.

Read More
915 Words | 4 Pages

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.

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
858 Words | 4 Pages

The boy should deserve a careful discussion from jurors before face the result of the trial and he emphases that there were only two people who saw the whole process of the murder stabbing the boy’s dad Juror 8 questioned the weapon which claim to kill father, which is a normal switchblade that even juror 8 owns one himself Juror 8 told other jurors to revote, and if this time 11 jurors still think that the boy is guilty, then he will go with them and say that the boy is guilty too One person voted “Not Guilty” at the second

Read More

More about 12 Angry Men Sparknotes

Related Topics

Open Document