A discourse community is a group of people who share a common interest, ambition, and hobby; they use communication to achieve certain goals or issues that they have encountered. There are many discourse communities all over the world, and many of us are in one or more discourse communities; however, they might not even know it. In life, each person will eventually be a part of a discourse community. A discourse community has many definitions; John Swales defines discourse communities as, groups that have goals or purpose, and use communication to achieve these goals. According to “The Concept of Discourse Community,” by instructors and researcher John Swales, there are six requirements that are required to form a discourse community.
Justice can be seen when one commits a crime, or does something immoral, and there is Justice only when the convict receives his punishment. However, it is not just, if the punishment of a crime is unfair, or immoral. The punishment must always fit the crime, although many times it is a highly debatable topic. In the movie, when Ben Chapman, the other team 's manager, harassed Jackie Robinson, the baseball league did what was just, and fired Robinson. Another CNN article covers a case where a man who was caught after a school shooting, was proven guilty, and has gotten jail time.
In Twelve Angry Men author, Reginald Rose, demonstrates the importance of not only serving on Jury Duty but a valuable life lesson for the jurors as well. Rose began the play with a description of twelve diverse men with twelve very unique personalities. Rose is trying to consult an illustration on why it’s important to see every piece of evidence by showing emotion through characters resolving them to argue and disagree. He is trying to show how even when you don't want to do something, put an extra 110% of your effort into it, the life of another, isn't something to joke around with. Jury duty is called upon and mandatory when you’re a U.S. citizen.
The jurors contradict themselves by starting off saying one thing and then later they say or do the exact opposite. Juror number seven in the play contradicted himself at the very beginning by saying the nineteen year old boy who was accused of stabbing his father in the stomach was completely quilty (Rose 315). The only reason Juror seven sided with the defendant being guilty at the beginning is because he didn’t want to sit in on the court case for a long time period because he had tickets for a baseball game which he thought was more of a priority than jury duty. He accused him of being guilty thinking everyone else would as well, therefore the case would end much earlier. He then contradicted himself by saying he was guilty for the longest time and then towards the end he was the only one out of a few others who said he was not guilty.
“A person is innocent until proved guilty in a court of law” In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, an 18-year-old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence, the three that are in doubt are the old man hearing “I’m going to kill you!” as well as the weapon of choice and how it was replicated, and finally the woman’s testimony. In my opinion, the boy could have been proven guilty, based on these the boy is not guilty.
Reginald Rose’s play 12 Angry Men was written to highlight flaws in the judicial system of the United States of America and to discuss the issue of social conformity vs. individuality. Reginald Rose is trying to make a point that the judicial system of the United States is not always reliable when it comes to deciding justice. The author is also displaying to the audience a scenario where social conformity and individuality are opposing each other. The play 12 Angry Men allows the audience to view an ordinary jury discussion about the life of a young boy being accused of murder.
12 Angry Men by #11 Someone has been killed, and this is no ordinary killing, a man was killed by his own son himself. 12 angry men fight this subject in court whether to prove the innocence of the boy. all All 11 jurors voted guilty except for one juror, he voted the the the boy not guilty. He thought that there was a possibility that the boy could have not stabbed his father but he is not 100% clear.
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.
Juror 8 is a natural leader, and one by one he persuades the other jurors to accept his arguments through persistence, supposing the evidence and suggesting that there are possible explanations to the witness stories and evidence given for the murder case. Rose uses Juror 8 to exemplify that there are many who take the aspects of justice seriously and can decide on fair verdicts. He says that he cannot “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”, demonstrating the ethical qualities that some of humanity possesses. He is also able to assert the views of intolerance and also comprehends that “prejudice obscures the truth”.
In these two critically-acclaimed movies, government ignorance is explored in distinct ways. In 12 Angry Men, a jury of 12 men is sent to determine the fate of an 18-year-old slum-raised Latino boy accused of stabbing his father to death. A guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. In Beasts of the Southern Wild we are taken on an adventure alongside Hushpuppy, an African-American six-year old, who lives on a poverty-stricken island called the Bathtub and whose father’s tough love prepares her for a harsh world. As completely opposite as these two perspectives seem, each represents opposing sides of social injustice and ultimately deliver similar messages.
This concept states that all individuals must be treated equally. Laws are made with the intent of establishing justice, but that is not always the case. I agree with this quote because following laws does not always mean justice is being served. Laws define what is right and what is wrong, while justice also takes into consideration the circumstances of the situation at that time. Nathanial Hawthorne’s
Justice is a way to prove someone is rightfully or wrongfully doing something in that time of event. If someone steals something and someone notices, that someone will try to bring the person who had something stolen from them justice because it was wrong. In “The Reeve’s Tale”, a short story in The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer, the miller is stealing food from people. So two students want to bring justice to the college professor who had food stolen from him. Allen and John, two students from the town, bring justice to the professor by going through several series of events over the course of their adventure.
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.
The movie “Twelve Angry Men” shows twelve jurors deciding the fate of a teenage boy. All of the jurors can be described differently due to their personalities. In this case, they are being described as shapes. In the diagram shown above, some shapes demonstrate more than one configuration. This is a representation of the multiple layers that make up the personality of people.
In a New York City, an 18-year-old male from a slum is on a trial claiming that he is responsible for his father death by stabbing him After both sides has finished their closing argument in the trial, the judge asks the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty or not The judge informs the jury decided the boy is guilty, he will face a death sentence as a result of this trial The jurors went into the private room to discuss about this case. At the first vote, all jurors vote guilty apart from Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), he was the only one who voted “Note Guilty” Juror 8 told other jurors that they should discuss about this case before they put a boy into a death sentence
