Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysis of 12 angry men
Movie analysis of 12 angry men 1957
The psychological phenomena in 12 angry men
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysis of 12 angry men
Movie analysis of 12 angry men 1957
The psychological phenomena in 12 angry men
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
How It All Began As the jurors step into the room, all 12 minds are set on the idea that without a doubt, the man in question has killed his father; all except one. More follow suit as the original mastermind stands up to the majority, and that majority soon becomes a minority. All endings do start with a beginning though, and that beginning is Juror Eight, who steps up to the challenge of becoming a justice seeker, and soon, others follow. In “Twelve Angry Men”, a play formed by Reginald Rose, Juror Eight is our shining protagonist, looking only to create fairness in the court of law.
In the play 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, Juror #3 makes two contradictory comments that actually help juror #8 prove that there may be grounds for reasonable doubt in this case. The first contradictory comment that Juror #3 makes is about the notorious phrase exclaimed throughout the centuries, a phrase that should make the hairs on your neck stand up in fright, however, it does not. This particular phrase is mentioned during a verbal brawl between Juror #3 and Juror #8, “I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him” (43)! It is apparent that Juror #3 does not actually intend to kill Juror #8 which contradicts what Juror #3 claimed earlier when he stated that telling someone that you want to kill them is a threat to be taken to heart and serves as legitimate
In 12 Angry Men, Juror Three’s past negative experiences with his kid affect how he acts during the trial. In Act I, Juror Three mentions how he had a bad relationship with his kid. He talks about how much he hates kids, specifically his. In this scene, Juror Three is letting out his anger on this case. Juror Eight also says “Perhaps you’d like to pull the switch” (42).
I believe people do have a tendency to allow their prejudices to direct their decisions. People have their prejudices, feel they are right and go along with that feeling. A great example of this is Juror Three in Twelve Angry Men. He believed the boy murdered his father because he felt he did it.
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
In the play 12 Angry Men, a murder case is being reviewed by a jury. This jury must decide if a kid who killed his father is guilty or not. Two jurors that were on opposing sides for most of the play was Juror Eight and Juror Three. The reason they were on opposing sides was because Juror Three believed the kid was guilty, while Juror Eight believed there was not enough evidence to convict him. Most of the jurors wanted to settle on having reasonable doubt, so another jury could be called in.
Juror 9’s Diverse Perspective In Reginald Rose’s 1950s play, “Twelve Angry Men,” Juror 9’s knowledge and age are used to demonstrate the value of diverse perspectives throughout the play. In the beginning of the play, Juror 11 is described as “...a mild, gentle old man, long since defeated by life, and now merely waiting to die” (Rose Page 5). Juror 9 is a quiet old man and shows that through Act 1, all that is known is this little description in the notes.
In the court system, jurors are tasked with the duty to conduct a fair verdict based on the testimony given and additional evidence shown. Some may forget this responsibility and use their prejudices that affect the juror's decision on the defendant's future. As a result, the accused may be falsely convicted and lose the majority of their life. The play 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose shows three perfect examples of prejudices during jury duty such as colorism, classism, and ageism.
In the drama, “Twelve Angry Men,” by Reginald Rose. A 19 year old boy is a suspect in the murdering of his father. A jury of twelve men is left to decide his fate, guilty or not guilty. Juror 10 is biased and a hypocrite, which helped them reach a unanimous vote of not guilty.
According to Webster's dictionary, a juror takes an oath of allegiance to serve on a jury to determine if a defendant is innocent or guilty of a particular crime. Jurors are supposed to remain unbiased and open minded when dealing with a defendant, however some jurors do not. In the play 12 angry men written by Reginald Rose jurors 10 and 3 are examples of bad jurors because they both show heavy bias against the defendant. In the book 12 angry men jurors play a key role in whether the defendant lives.
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.
Having a biased jury is just one way Twelve Angry Men shows the dangers of the jury system. Throughout the course of the play, many of the jurors assume, because
The justice system that relies on twelve individuals reaching a life-or-death decision has many complications and dangers. The play Twelve Angry Men, by Reiginald Rose, illustrates the dangers of a justice system that relies on twelve people reaching a life-or-death decision because people are biased, they think of a jury system as an inconvenience, and many people aren’t as intelligent as others. The first reason why Reiginald illustrates dangers is because people can be biased or they can stereotype the defendant. The Jurors in Twelve Angry Men relate to this because a few of them were biased and several of them stereotyped the defendant for being from the slums. The defendant in this play was a 19 year old kid from the slums.
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.”
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.