ipl-logo

Bias In 12 Angry Men

708 Words3 Pages

In the movie “12 Angry Men” by Sidney Lumet exhibits a courthouse with twelve men deciding whether the accused eighteen year old kid who’s been charged with murdering his father innocent or guilty with a unanimous vote. Upon further examination, juror number ten demonstrated a vice in particular a biased thinking stating “Look, we’re all grown-ups in here. We heard the facts didn’t we? You’re not gonna tell me we’re supposed to believe this kid, knowing what he is.” Thus addressing us that juror ten has a strong bias against the defendant due to the indulgence of racism, even though it will result with electrocution. Furthermore, after introducing his claim that the kid is guilty, it was convincing that jurors also believed that he was responsible. …show more content…

They are. I know it.” This scene depicts him having a dogmatic vice due to mentioning that he says, “I know it” demonstrating that his beliefs are always right and the others are wrong. Correspondingly, in light of the situation by holding a disclosed voting, juror number nine voted not guilty due to number eight’s motive being unassured whether the boy is guilty or not even though having to face against the ridicule of others. As a result, influencing juror number nine presenting a patient virtue to allow the conversation to continue. Furthermore, after sheding light of the murder case for instance the replica switchblade that they say was “unique” and the kid’s motive of killing his father having little evidence as to why he suddenly killed his dad even though violence in the kid’s life has been a norm; juror number five displays an unemotional virtue due to the reasons

Show More
Related

Comparing Monster 'And 12 Angry Men'

823 Words | 4 Pages

These people become the changing point of the stories. In Twelve Angry Men Juror #8 suggested that they talk about it before just saying that the kid was guilty, when all the other jurors voted guilty without even thinking about their decisions. Even when some of the other jurors got mad and started yelling at him, but he stayed calm and tried to work things out. Also, he convinced Juror #9 to change his vote to not guilty, which then changed slowly everybody else's vote. In Monster, Kathy O'Brien, Steve's lawyer tries her best to defend him even though she didn't even really know if he was innocence.

Read More

Juror Eight And Juror Three In John Steinbeck's 12 Angry Men

502 Words | 3 Pages

Juror Eight was the only man from the beginning of the play who stuck by his belief that the kid was innocent. He stood alone in front of the other jurors and defended himself from the other jurors, such as Juror Three and Juror Ten. Jurors Three and Ten were adamant that the kid was guilty and refused to listen to Juror Eight’s “nonsense”. Juror Eight’s evidence and speeches persuaded all the other jurors to change their vote from not guilty, except for Juror Three. The only reason Juror Three had it out for the kid was because he himself had some issues with kids respecting their parents, and specifically their fathers.

Read More

Analytical Essay On 12 Angry Men

744 Words | 3 Pages

Juror 8 is the most significant persuader is the entire jury. He is the only person who believes the boy is not guilty. He makes several points that justify his reasoning. The first major point he makes is the switchblade knife. During the trial the prosecution assumed that that knife was one of a kind and no other person could have a knife like that.

Read More

Peer Pressure In Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men

1247 Words | 5 Pages

While all of the other men have changed their vote to a not guilty verdict, the third jurors remains with his original belief. Even in the very end of the play, he acts hostile against the others trying to change his mind, in saying “Do you think I’m an idiot or something?” (Rose 72). One juror that seems almost impervious to argumentative fallacies and peer pressure is Juror 8. Juror almost displays the ideal juror, and the rest tend to mimic the flaws of the system.

Read More

Civility In Twelve Angry Men

1339 Words | 6 Pages

Finally, by the end of the play, many jurors stopped listening to the men who were not civil. Juror 3 is an example of a person who was ignored because he was inconsiderate towards the other jurors. In fact, Juror 3 repeatedly accused many jurors of lying, which is where he lost the other’s vote. Juror 8’s calm nature favored the jury's attention. People often try to solve issues with anger.

Read More

12 Angry Men Assessment: 12 Angry Men

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

Prejudice In The Way Of Truth In Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose

569 Words | 3 Pages

The protagonist “is a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man… he is a man of strength tempered with compassion.” While some jury members weren’t at all satisfied with Juror Eight having a different opinion from them and basically showing them how work is done, everyone will agree that he was one of the most civilized jurors in there, unlike Juror Three, whom has short-temper and doesn’t like anybody else’s opinions. One of the jury members specifically said that Juror Three had done nothing but be rude, while Juror Eight had been polite and showed the most he could about the

Read More

12 Angry Men Rhetorical Analysis

1186 Words | 5 Pages

Many of the jurors use logos, logic and reasoning, to lay out the evidence in a rational and concrete manner to convince him. An example is when 4th Juror lays out all of the evidence of the knife to convince 8th Juror with seven, linear, factual points. The reader and audience is meant to connect a sense of ethos, reliability or competence, to 8th Juror, as he is the only one who doesn’t, at first, seem to be clouded by ignorance, racism, disinterest, or any other characteristic that might cloud

Read More

Minority Influence In 12 Angry Men

1458 Words | 6 Pages

This movie is the best example of minority influence where in the earlier stage only one juror no. 8 says defendant is not guilty but in the end of the movie we see that he is able to influence all the jurors in a very logical manner which I am going to point out later so that all the jurors lastly says the defendant is not guilty. Minority influence is more likely to occur if the point of view of the minority is consistent, flexible, and appealing to the majority. The juror no. 8 doesn’t know defendant is guilty or not guilty but he has only doubt in his mind which he trying to clear during the entire film and with which he also able to clear the views of other

Read More

Examples Of Social Injustice In 12 Angry Men

803 Words | 4 Pages

This process continues throughout the course of the movie, and each juror’s biases is slowly revealed. Earlier through the movie, it is already justifiable to label juror 10 as a bigoted racist as he reveals strong racist tendencies against the defendant, stating his only reason for voting guilty is the boy’s ethnicity and background. . Another interesting aspect of this 1957 film is the “reverse prejudice” portrayed by juror

Read More

Discrimination In 12 Angry Men

1346 Words | 6 Pages

Juror 3 has his heart set that the boy is guilty, only because his own son left him years ago. In the movie he explains, I 've got a kid. When he was eight years old, he ran away from a fight. I saw him. I was so ashamed, I told him right out, ‘I 'm gonna make a man out of you or I 'm gonna bust you up into little pieces trying.’

Read More

12 Angry Men Interview Analysis

1139 Words | 5 Pages

8: I think that… as a juror… we have to really think, we have to think about all the evidence, about all the outcomes. Well if I voted guilty at the initial vote, we would’ve let the boy die but as a juror being given jury duty… one of the highest duties of citizenship… is a big duty and being trusted and chosen to have a person’s life in your hands is just way too much pressure to handle and is one of the hardest things to do in your own lifetime and a one of a lifetime experience that you will just never forget. I would say that a case like this takes so much time and needs to have a proper moral to end up with the right

Read More

Examples Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men

915 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More

Social Psychology In The Movie Twelve Angry Men

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

Fallacies In 12 Angry Men

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

More about Bias In 12 Angry Men

Related Topics

Open Document