The movie “Twelve Angry Men” portrayed the theme of prejudice though several of the jurors base their opinions of the case on racist feelings toward the 16 year old boy. This is shown by; “The 4th Juror coldly states that people from slums are more likely to be violent, which offends the 5th Juror, who grew up in a slum. The 10th Juror makes racist statements throughout, and as the deliberation goes on” (Sparknotes) This is relevant to the
Prejudice was revealed in Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, because it is twelve angry men who have to prove whether this boy is guilty or not guilty of murder to his father. Yes, there was a lot of prejudice but the main was Ageism, upbringing along with classism. Ageism would bring how one of the jurors has a past with his son, jurors judged the kid with his past consequences, along with the upbringing of classism that would follow how the jurors judged the kid on what he looked like, where he lived and how he presented himself. Ageism displayed in this play by juror three with how he treats his own son “ he hit me in the face.
Deeper into the play Juror Three is enraged because the defendant killed his dad and he personally related. Deep down Juror Three wanted the defendant to be convicted as guilty due to how Juror Three felt about the falling out with his son; he wanted his son to pay for leaving. Juror Three held this grudge until the end of the drama where Juror Eight states, “It’s not your boy. He’s somebody else.” (Rose, pg 74).
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.
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.
In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, we can see that prejudice gets in the way of truth. Many of the jurors that participated have let prejudice get in their way to see the truth and look at the real situation and facts, for example, Juror Three, who “is a very strong, very forceful, extremely opinionated man within whom can be detected a streak of sadism… is intolerant of opinions other than his own, and accustomed to forcing his wishes upon others.” He has a son that he identifies as a “tough guy”, which is one of the descriptions of the 19-year-old accused, Juror Three let the image of his own son be reflected on the boy and made him think unfairly. Getting to the bottom of a complex issue takes time and effort. At the beginning of the play, most jury members wanted to get over the case and go home as early as they could, but one of the jury members, Juror Eight, who was sure the boy was not guilty, took many hours to question the evidence and the case and murder itself, but he was not the only one as other jury members also spoke about what they thought in the past options, fairly quick, it was almost six in the evening and Juror Six wanted to leave to go to his family, it may have been more of an excuse to leave, but the jurors did not let him leave because they had gone far enough to decide where the trial was going
because the defendant reminds him of his son (Rose 21). In the courtroom, Juror 3’s resentment towards his son and their troublesome relationship is put on full display. Because of Juror 3’s projection of his negative stereotypes of teenagers, he stubbornly pushes the others to vote the defendant guilty. Through Juror 3, Rose attempts to show how negative past
Twelve Angry Men “A person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” In the play, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a nineteen years old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence were presented, the three that are weak include the one of a kind knife, the old men who heard the words “I’m going to kill you!” and the woman who is in question because of her glasses. Based on these, the boy is not guilty.
Mobashshir Arshad Ansari DM 16230 The movie “12 Angry Men” is a court drama based movie. The entire film takes place within a small New York City jury room, on "the hottest day of the year," as 12 men debate the fate of a young defendant charged with murdering his father. Most courtroom movies feel it necessary to end with a clear-cut verdict. But "12 Angry Men" never states whether the defendant is innocent or guilty if innocent then who is guilty.
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.
Title: Fallacies in the movie ’12 Angry Men’ Name: Prerna Singh Roll No.: 13110082 Word Count: The movie ’12 Angry Men’ beautifully presents a number of critical thinking aspects. Fallacies are depicted with excellent examples. Here is a list of the fallacies observed. Every juror had his own set of prejudices which gave way to so many fallacies to come up.
Complete description of all “Fallacies” in the movie “12 ANGRY MEN”: The film “Twelve Angry Men” involves a lot of logical fallacies, some of which are quite prominent and provocative. Like for eg. The fallacies which involve racism and bigotry of Juror #10 and the anger revealed which manifests into personal anguish by Juror#3.
‘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.
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.
