"Don 't judge a book by its cover" is a famous saying that some of us heard it before and some of us experienced it. 12 jurors were experiencing this quote when they gathered to decide whether a young boy is guilty by killing his father or not. Juror 2 stated, "Well, anyway, I think he was guilty" (6). Juror 2 represent most of us, as sometimes we judge from what we hear and not from what we see. The 12 jurors are from various backgrounds and each one has a distinctive personality.
Twelve Correct Jurors ¨Murder in the first degree… premeditated homicide… is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts¨ (Rose, 9). A 19-year-old ¨boy¨ is on trial for the gruesome stabbing of his father. In Twelve Angry Men adapted by Reginald Rose, the jurors came to the right decision; in this case, with the evidence presented, the 19-year-old man is innocent! The woman who testified couldn't have seen it, the old man couldn't have heard it, and a trained knife fighter—like the man was—wouldn't have left a stab wound like the one left in the man´s father.
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.
Wrongful conviction is often caused by mistaken eyewitness identity, civil misconduct, and has even lead to the creation of a television series called Vindicated. In a nationwide, 23 year long research report, University of
In the real world many people face bias because of their race, gender, where they live, what they believe in, their criminal history, and other ways. Just like the real world this can be seen in the story of 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose. In the story there were two characters that showed lots of bias; the author named them Juror 3 and Juror 10. In 12 Angry Men, Reginald Rose shows Juror 3’s relationship with his son and Juror 10’s bigoted mind stopped them from keeping an unbiased opinion on the case.
Thirdly, juror 7 has the smallest shape as he is basically only a supporting character. With this being said, however, his placement in figure 1 is important. Juror 7 serves as a kind of a wedge in the jury room. While at times it was rude, his joking manner may have prevented an all out screaming match. His placement in the figure almost turns it into a Venn diagram with one side (guilty) on the left and another (not guilty) on the right.
Antagonists in both texts lack empathy, creating a struggle when eventually trying to achieve justice. In 12 Angry Men, Juror 3 is a very stubborn man who doesn’t want to change his opinion even when others present him with facts. However, as their other jurors debate their point of view, Juror 3 becomes more open-minded to the situation. On the other hand, Johnny Friendly is a very arrogant man who does not develop over the text. Friendly doesn’t challenge himself which demonstrates that without accepting the truth you can’t achieve success.
8th juror appeals to their sense of pathos and pity by saying “this boy’s been kicked around all his life… He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.” While this has nothing to do with the case, he hopes to appeal to their humanity in order to get them to give him a chance in these deliberations.
Character Analysis of Juror #11 In the film 12 Angry Men, Juror #11 is seen as a man with a sense of justice, fairness, and logic. Even though he does not play a major role in the film, his character cannot be ignored. He played an essential role in the defense for the defendant’s innocence and promoted fairness during the jury’s debate on whether or not the defendant was guilty. Whenever he spoke during the debate, his comments and questions were not provocative like the others.
Throughout the film 12 Angry men, it demonstrates many critical thinking concepts that we have learned throughout the course of this class. This film as a whole utilizes these concepts in order to illustrate the fallacies and the overall meaning of critical thinking. One major aspect that I noticed that was utilized throughout this film was word choice. In this film, they used their words to depict a certain meaning and tone. However, some of the words that they used can be viewed as either ambiguous, vague or as manipulation.
Imagine getting that one dreaded letter in the mail, calling you to do the one thing you didn’t plan the week before your wedding, JURY DUTY. Reginald Rose wrote the play Twelve Angry Men for a television drama after he sat on a jury. The characters in this play are identified not by names but by numbers. Twelve men are confined to a deliberation room after the trial of a 19-year-old boy accused of stabbing and killing his father. Twelve Angry Men illustrates the many dangers of the jury system like, a biased jury, being left with questions, and feeling inconvenienced by jury duty.
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.
Juror number 5’s empathetic emotions allowed him to forget the stereotypical judgment that he had towards the teenage boy upon his low class status. However, this WOK can be
There is also almost always going to be a person who’s going to try and make your victory that much harder for Juror 8, that’s going head to head with Juror 3. With a man who already has his mind set to this thinking…” You come in here with your heart bleeding all over the floor about slums and injustices and you make up those wild stories, and you’ve got a couple of soft-hearted sobs listening to you. Well, I’m not... what’s the matter with you people? This boys is guilty!
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.
