ipl-logo

Juror's Discrimination Depicted In 12 Angry Men

802 Words4 Pages

12 Angry Men is a film about 12 jurors arguing the conviction of a young man, charged with first degree murder. The conflict the men face causes them to rethink their opinions and values until everyone comes to an agreement that the boy is innocent. When the jurors meet in the jury room, they sit around the table and are numbered 1-12. Most of the jurors voted ‘Guilty’, but 8 jurors voted ‘Not Guilty’. When #8 was asked why he voted that way, he told them that a young man shouldn’t be sent off to die that quickly without them analyzing it. One of the witnesses attested that the defendant yelled “I’m gonna kill you!” to his father, the jurors used this as evidence that the boy is guilty, but when one juror says this to another, their eyes open …show more content…

This was to prove that the woman had bad eyesight, therefore her testimony was not accurate. Juror number 10 showed harsh discrimination. He was constantly saying things about the defendant being from the slums. He got on a long rant about the boy, the other jurors got out of their seats and turned their backs to him. Juror number three took the case very personally. He was the last one to agree that the boy is innocent, since the vote had to be unanimous, the men were dependant on his vote. When his son was 16, they got into a fight and they have not seen each other in two years. This makes his son 18 years old, the same as the defendant. Juror number 7, I believe, was trying to catch a baseball game, the Yankees and Cleveland. He did not want to be on jury duty, but he couldn’t get out of it. He changed his vote to not guilty because he said he had enough and wanted to leave. This film successfully reflects the political tensions of America in the 1950s. It also accurately shows the need for a fair trial, prejudice, peer pressure, and the value of the justice system. All of these previously listed things are important to this

Show More
Related
1072 Words | 5 Pages

A court is only as sound as its jury, and a jury is only as sound as the men who make it up. I am confident that you gentlemen will review without passion the evidence you have heard, come to a decision, and restore this defendant to his family. In the name of God, do your duty." Juror 8 is very outspoken because he is the only one in the beginning that think the boy is not guilty. This leads him to stand up against all of the other jurors so that he can clearly get his point across.

Read More
502 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
755 Words | 4 Pages

Daja McLaurin Benton TA: Yiwen Dai Communications: 250 1 April, 2016 12 Angry Men Assessment After viewing the movie 12 Angry Men the group was able to implement the ideas of group think immediately during the start of the movie. Since the men briefly established a relationship from the time of witnessing the trial to start of deliberation n the empty room and reaching a unanimous decision, they found that all of the men initially achieved a verdict of guilty accept for juror 8. After this surprising decision the men began to show their true colors and distinguish how one may believe something and another juror may believe another. The group takes time in pleading individual opinions while deciding on the guilt or innocence of a young boy

Read More
289 Words | 2 Pages

Twelve Angry Men is about twelve men who must decide whether a 16-year-old boy is guilty of killing his father. One of the Jurors, Juror 2, starts as a quiet and unsure person. He tends to agree with the other jurors without thinking much of himself. He doesn't speak up much and seems to go along with the other jurors’ opinions. At the start, he seems uncertain and relies on others to guide his decisions.

Read More
471 Words | 2 Pages

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.

Read More
522 Words | 3 Pages

Juror 3 States his point and sticks to it. When the Jurors decided to have the first vote he voted guilty and so did everybody else except Juror 8. The third Juror likes to stick to the facts and wants the boy to pay for what he did. Thinks everybody should have a fair trial. Juror 3 is a very formal man he said “ I used to call my father sir.

Read More
695 Words | 3 Pages

It is about getting everyone to agree on the same goal and make sure no one feels unsure about their decision. Juror number eight was the first one to vote not guilty. Juror number 9 was the next person to vote not guilty, he said the reason he changed his vote was because he wanted to hear juror number eights point of view on why he thought that way. After they had went over all the facts all the jurors started to change their minds. According to filmsite, the order in which the jurors changed their votes were, juror 8, 9, 5, 11, 2, 6, 7, 12, 1, jurors 4 and 10 changed their minds at the same time, and juror number 3 was the last one to vote not guilty.

Read More
892 Words | 4 Pages

Near the end of the play, he went on an angry tangent that highlighted his views even more clearly for the other jurors, turning them away from him and his beliefs. His view on the case was heavily swayed by his own opinions and bigotry. Up until the very end, he was sold on the fact that the boy was guilty with no reason to back it up other than due to his race. Overall, the jurors each had their own personalities that caused their views on the case to be distorted into something that would fit their own beliefs and caused conflict throughout the play. There were many factors that contributed to those conflicts along with the idea

Read More
1016 Words | 5 Pages

The reason that he voted not guilty is located in his quote: “ There are eleven votes for “guilty.” It’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” This quote is quite important to me because of 8. Juror reminds me of a significant thing for me. Which is, the truth that we see things as we are.

Read More
1458 Words | 6 Pages

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.

Read More
526 Words | 3 Pages

12 Angry Men is a Fictional Film about a Murder Trial and 12 Jurors who argue and yap at each other for an hour and thirty five minutes. 12 Angry Men is a film about a murder trial with 12 jurors deciding whether or not a young boy is guilty of murdering his father. The film starts out calm and collective with the Jurors reviewing evidence for their decision, but as the film goes on, tensions rise due to many factors. The jurors, even at first, disagreed with each other, which caused arguments over the evidence. The weather was very hot and also made everyone on edge because they had to sit in a hot room together arguing.

Read More
803 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More
591 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
1183 Words | 5 Pages

This was agreed upon during the trial that it was possible for the woman to see the killing happen when there was train coming by. But later on they look at this eyewitness testimony more critically by stating that “she had marks on the side of her nose and [was] rubbing them in court” and that no one “wears [there] eyeglasses to bed” hear they use reason that her testimony might be uncertain, that she might of seen a blur and that she could of made a mistake. In addition the jurors use their perceptions of the young boy with their personal knowledge and create a stereotype. As juror number ten says that “people form slum backgrounds area menace to society” as well as “the boy looks guilty” and “they’re born liars”. Some jurors assume that due to his background and experiences in life that he is guilty and identify him as a criminal instead of a human being like everyone else.

Read More
915 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More

More about Juror's Discrimination Depicted In 12 Angry Men

Open Document