ipl-logo

Conviction In Twelve Angry Men, By Reginald Rose

704 Words3 Pages

Conviction Conviction is when you make a formal declaration that someone is guilty of a criminal offense. In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a young boy is accused of murdering his father. The Jurors all think that he is guilty except for the eighth juror. The eighth juror has to try to convince the other jurors not to convict the boy. The jurors have to use someone's word to decide if the boy was guilty or not. Some of the jurors used personal experiences to judge if the boy would kill his father. The witnesses said that they saw and heard him kill his father. The boy was interrogated by the police but, he did not have a perfect memory. Someone's word should not be enough to put someone in the electric chair. Many people use a bad experience to judge someone else. In the play the third juror talks about his kid. The third juror said “It's the kids, the way they are nowadays. Angry! Hostile! You can not do a dang thing with them. Just the way they talk to you.” (17) He is saying that all kids act the same. We all know that no one is the same. The eighth juror says “It’s not your boy. He’s somebody else.” The third juror thinks about it and decides “ Not guilty.” (72) He realizes that he is comparing the boy on trial with his son. He knows that is not fair and he has a reasonable doubt. He was judging the boy …show more content…

The ninth juror said “He was dragging his left leg and trying to hide it because he was ashamed.” (36) The old Man could not make it to the door in time to see the boy run down the stairs. The tenth juror said “Here’s a women who’s lying in bed and can’t sleep. She’s dying with the heat. Know what I mean? Anyway, she looks out the window and right across the street she sees the kid stick the knife into his father. (15) She was not wearing her glasses because she was trying to fall asleep. She would not be able to be certain that who she saw was the boy. They both could not be certain that it was the

Show More
Related
323 Words | 2 Pages

In the play, Twelve angry men, by Reginald Rose, was about a trial to see if a boy was a murderer. It showed reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in a criminal trial. A piece of evidence is the el train and the knife. The boy bought the murder weapon the night of the murder, he also showed it to three friends.

Read More
170 Words | 1 Pages

There is a similarity between the play of Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose and Trifles regarding the idea of investigating the evidences. Eleven men who are sure the murder is guilty have made up their minds before they have even considered that the killer might be innocent. But, Juror eight gets them to review the evidence more carefully. As a group, the judges developed visions that even most jurors changed their views when the validity of the evidence was shown to be a questionable. There is a similarity between the play of Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose and Trifles regarding the idea of investigating the evidences.

Read More
661 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
972 Words | 4 Pages

The art of literature is held in the hands of authors, they hold the power to create a story and depict to their readers in any way they choose. Stories are like clay they can be made into a variety of objects, yet the way one chooses to shape the clay is the object someone perceives. The same can be told for the genre of mystery, authors often take on different perspectives that create unique ways of figuring out a mystery. In the novel, The Maltese Falcon, Dashiell Hammett writes from a detective’s perspective. This allows the reader to have knowledge of all the facts and read from an unbiased perspective.

Read More
1216 Words | 5 Pages

Juror are randomly chosen citizens brought in to watch and interpret the case, and break it down and decide whether the defendant is guilty or not. Reginald Rose´s 12 Angry Men was written after while watching real murder trial it inspired him to reveal the positives and negatives of Jury deliberations. While bench trial have strong merits, trial by Jury is more effective for many reasons including,the diversity and variety of backgrounds the jurors bring, the increase chance of discovering the truth, as well as, the fact that Jurors are usually more caring then a Judge who may be calloused from previous experiences is why trial by Jury is the fairest way to decide a criminal case. A significant advantage trial by jury offer is the diversity and variety in backgrounds the Jurors. While the Jurors were discussing the stab wound Juror Five presents the relevant the point with his jurors saying, ¨ You don 't hold this of knife that way.

Read More
451 Words | 2 Pages

There’s a long pause. 3rd Juror: Alright, “Not guilty.”” (Rose 72) Juror eight expresses individuality by choosing “not guilty” in the beginning even though everyone else had done the opposite.

Read More
692 Words | 3 Pages

The novel Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose includes conflicts on a jury duty of twelve white men with very different backgrounds and experiences. In order for someone to be convicted the jury must unanimously reach a guilty verdict. There must be enough evidence against the defendant to prove he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt This is just one of many examples that shows how even the slightest hesitation can make an enormous change on the upshot in many different environments in both court and life. Therefore; doubt is the most powerful asset in the play. Doubt slowly creeps itself into the minds of the jurors, slowly growing stronger and stronger as more of them begin to doubt the boy’s innocence.

Read More
521 Words | 3 Pages

The film, 12 angry men is about 12 members of the jury that is trying to solve a trial of a murder. There is a juror named, Henry Fonda. Throughout the argument the jurors were really biased. There were many attributions in the film. One of it is when Henry Fonda made the point when the boy got pushed around all his life and he was treated really poorly.

Read More
1212 Words | 5 Pages

His thought is that he can get back at his son by sending this boy off to his death. He sticks to his vote of guilty throughout the play and tries to get others on his side, even when it is clear there is reasonable doubt. Towards the end of the play the jurors realize the women that testified must wears glasses, and could not have seen the boy murder his father, which is one of the key testimonies Juror 3 is making his claim out of. After recognising his vote of guilty is wrong, Juror 3 defends himself by saying, “How do you know what she saw?”(lll,62) The rest of the jurors decide there is reasonable doubt, but still Juror 3 blurts out, “I think he is guilty!”

Read More
712 Words | 3 Pages

Do you know how tough it is for one person to convince 11 different men that one boy is not guilty? Juror number 8 a very broad-minded man has successfully changed all 11 Jurors votes to not guilty in the given murder case. On todays topic, I will be talking about how juror # 8 wanted to learn more about the murder case before giving his final opinion. Second, how he proved that all the evidence given was not accurate. Finally, how he managed to stand all alone in the begging of the story, and change the thought of every individual juror.

Read More
939 Words | 4 Pages

The U.S. justice system is a concept that has come under scrutiny many times over the 200-plus years of its existence, but which still exists in much the same form today as when it was first devised. “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a theatrical drama that portrays many of the merits and faults of the jury-based judicial system. Some of the pros that are shown include how the input of many different people and backgrounds can result in a greater truth being uncovered, and how the voice of even a single man can be heard and considered by all jury members. Some cons that the play illustrates include how there can instances in which jury members merely go with the immediate popular opinion on the verdict, whether because they are susceptible to peer pressure or merely because they’d rather the case be over with as quickly as possible. Rose himself seems to be generally in favor of the current U.S. justice system, as the characters who represent the negative aspects of the system are shown to be hateful and irrational men, while the opposite is true for the people who represent the system’s more positive qualities.

Read More
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
1302 Words | 6 Pages

But I'll try one. Suppose you talk us all outa this and the kid really did knife his father? To this point Juror 8 had been the voice of reason, but this time a notable statement was made by a man who has said nothing almost the entire time. At this time another tally was taken and the vote total this time was 3 guilty to 9 innocent.

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
965 Words | 4 Pages

Juror number three the only member who believe that the young man was not getting a fair trial with that, during the initial round of voting cast a not guilty verdict. With the use of rounds and dyads he encouraged members to discuss the case clearly and objectively examining pieces of evidences used in court. Though other jurors were not his favor however, he remained adamant that the case be combed thoroughly. I believe that juror number eight personal characteristics and logical reasoning allowed him to bring the other members of the jury to his level and change their mindset, thinking and decision-making process ruling in favor of a unanimous 12-0 not guilty verdict.

Read More

More about Conviction In Twelve Angry Men, By Reginald Rose

Open Document