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.
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.
12 Angry Men Homar Cruz 1A In the act 12 Angry Men the author wanted to show the reader that jurors are having irresponsible behaviors, without juror 8 the boy would’ve been unfairly convicted. Also you can make an inference that the boy's attorney didn’t have the capacity to defend him in court. For instance, when all jurors arrived to the courtroom the clerk decided on a vote. Mainly all jurors raised their hand, wanted to get out of their, wanted to go watch their concert.
12 Angry Men" focuses on a jury 's deliberations in a capital murder case. A 12-man jury is sent to begin deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old man accused in the stabbing death of his father, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. The case appears to be open-and-shut: The defendant has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have lost is found at the murder scene; and several witnesses either heard screaming, saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene. Eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty; only Juror No. 8 (Mr. Davis) casts a not guilty vote. At first Mr. Davis bases his vote more so for the sake of discussion; after all, the jurors must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
12 Angry Men Essay We can improve our jury system by getting jurors who really cares and isn’t bias because it will be a bias trial if we do not include these things. The first way we can improve our jury system is by getting jurors who really cares because some people just want to go home and just go with the flow. On page 11 juror 12 said “i didn’t object to doing my duty. I just mentioned that I might not have a job by time I get back”
Henry Fonda known as Juror 8 is the sole rebellious voice who refuses to agree with a unanimous guilty decision. However, uncertain weather the boy is guilty or not, his persistence on re-examining the details of the case slowly starts to change the rest of the juror’s minds. He does this by using various techniques of negotiating, persuasion and power to influence his companions. In the beginning Henry is the only the one to vote not guilty amongst the twelve men, he does because he feels that the group should at least discuss the heavy decision at hand, a mans life.
We would argue that all six approaches were used in 12 Angry Men, though in varying degrees. Democratic ethics can be found in the jury room itself, especially with Juror 8 bringing up again and again that the case be discussed openly because he had reasonable doubt, saying it was important because someone might die as a result of their decision and that all things should be taken into account for the greater good. Juror 11 also remarked upon this saying “we don’t get anything out of this” but that the men were, regardless, committed to doing what was right. Universal-Humanitarian ethics arise in the relentless fact checking and commitment to facts not emotions for the best rational reasoning. This was heavily exemplified by by Jurors 3 and
“Twelve Angry Men” is a story that tries to show how prejudice should not be used to distort the course of Justice. Juror 3, a man who owns a small business who proudly employs
The play 12 Angry Men is about a jury of twelve men that are given the task of deciding the fate, guilty or not guilty, of a young boy accused of murdering his father. The theme of standing up against the majority is very prevalent in this story because of the decisions some of the jurors make throughout the play. Juror 8 makes the decision to vote not guilty, he is the one and only juror in this play that decides to vote not guilty for the boy in the beginning. The other eleven jurors decide to vote guilty because of the evidence that they have been presented with. The act of Juror 8 standing against the majority of the other jurors about the case, voting not guilty, allows the jurors to thoroughly dissect the case, understanding it fully and thoughtfully before making their decision of guilty or not guilty.
In the movie 12 Angry Men each juror has a different personality. Figure one shows the shape, color, size, and placement of each character chosen. Juror eight is a rounded rectangle and is a bright yellow on the outside and pale yellow on the inside. Juror three is a square and is red on the outside and blue on the inside. Juror seven is a rectangle that is dark green on the outside and a lighter green on the inside.
Filmed all at one location: the courthouse, Twelve Angry Men is a drama about a murder case. The jury is trying to prove whether or not a teenage boy—played by John Savoca—is guilty of stabbing his father to death. Eleven of the twelve jurors, are ready to pronounce the boy guilty and be done with it. But juror #8— portrayed by Reginald Rose—declares the teen innocent. This creates an uproar of disapproval from the others, and they set out to persuade #8 of the boy’s guilt.
‘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.
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.
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.
