Many people, if asked what they would prefer, would prefer to read the book instead of watching the movie. It could be because the movie will always leave some parts from the story out. It seems like directors of the movie always leave out parts from the book, only incorporating the important parts from the story. Some also say that they prefer to leave the descriptions of things in the book up to their imagination. Also, when you are reading the book, you get to read the main characters point of view on things.
In his play Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose brings us back in time to 1957, to a jury room of a New York Court of Law where one man, Juror #8, confronts the rest of the jury to look at a homicide case without prejudice, and ultimately convinces Juror #2, a very soft-spoken man who at first had little say in the deliberation. Throughout the play, many of the jurors give convincing arguments that make one think about whether the boy is “guilty” or “not guilty.” Ultimately, one is convinced by ethos, logos, and pathos. We can see ethos, logos, and pathos having an effect on Juror #2 as he begins as a humble man and changes into someone brave at the end. Although all three modes play a part in convincing Juror #2, pathos was the most influential
This proves that he is not afraid to have a disagreement with other jurors. Moreover, he fights for justice against the other jurors’ prejudices. It is clear that the members of the jury had already made up their minds when they first walk into the
Juror nine realizes that juror eight has just been trying to protect the kid's life not knowing for sure if he is guilty or not. Juror nine says, “Thank you. This gentleman has been standing alone against us. He doesn’t say the boy is not guilty. He just isn’t sure.
The Power of Three Perspectives One can be easily mislead or persuade in a direction they do not agree with. However this is not the case with Juror 8 (Mr. Davis) in the film 12 Angry Men. In this film, twelve jurors try to identify whether or not the convicted eighteen year-old boy is guilty of murdering his father with a switchblade knife. If the puerto-rican boy is found guilty, he will be sent to the electric chair and sentenced to death.
In 12 Angry Men by Reginald Ross the themes of prejudice and the truth conflict with one another. Throughout the book, Juror 10 is prejudice against kids living in the rough part of town saying things such as, “I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say. You know that” (Ross 16) and “Look, you know how those people lie. I don’t have to tell you.
A juror that was very vulnerable to the pressure was Juror 2. He lacks diction, and seems weak in his beliefs. When the men are asked to share their opinions he says, “Well, it’s hard to put into words. I just-think he’s guilty” (Rose 14). Contrary to the second juror, the third jurors resents being pressured by his peers.
Juror number three states “what’s the matter with you guys? You all know he’s guilty! He’s got to burn! You’re letting him slip through your fingers!(Rose 1957). This shows the reader that the bias of the jurors was solely based on the racist thoughts they had pretrial.
When someone has committed a crime, they are put on trial and they go through the motions of the judicial system. In 12 Angry Men, Reginald Rose creates a play that displays the judicial system in its truest form. It tells the story of the jury, as they have to come to a unanimous verdict of whether the defendant is guilty, innocent, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, of murder. The main conflict that the jurors face in the play is whether to charge him as guilty or not. Through the conflict in the book, the flaws in the justice system are illustrated and reasonable doubt appears.
The Film 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, is a film written about the American jury system. In the film, as in any part in life, emotions are a tricky thing; This is especially true for the 3rd, 7th, and 8th jurors. One of the main themes in the film questions that of the emotions of the jurors. That question is: Is it possible to keep personal prejudice and emotions out of a trial? Is this even a good or bad thing?
Reasonable doubt proves that critical thinking is important when someone’s life is in someone else’s hands. “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, is a play about twelve jury members who must deliberate and decide the fate of a man who is accused of murdering his father. These twelve men must unanimously agree on whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty without reasonable doubt. Just like the jurors, the readers of this play have not witnessed the crime that took place before the trial started. Everyone, but the writer, is in the dark about who committed the crime.
One of the men in the room, eight, says “There were eleven votes for guilty. It's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die
Juror Ten announces his intentions very early in the play. He speaks loudly and forcefully from the beginning, clearly showing his racism and prejudice towards the boy. Juror 10 quickly votes guilty and asserts that the defendant cannot be believed because “they’re born liars”. Additionally, he claims that the “kids who crawl outa those places are real trash.”
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.
According to Planned Parenthood, 3 out of 10 women in the United States will have an abortion before they turn 45. That means that out of the 157 million women living in the United States, 47,100,000of those women have or will have an abortion in their lifetime (United States census bureau 2010). This proves that abortion is an incredibly imperative part of women’s health care. Having a child is not an easy feat and those who don’t have the resources to raise a child should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy. Anti-choice activists have been using shame and violence to promote their cause for years on end.
