ipl-logo

Juror's Self-Image In Twelve Angry Men

692 Words3 Pages

In the movie Twelve Angry Men, the characters in the movie struggled with getting along with each other. As they talked about the case more and more the more the men got angry at each other. While the jurors argue, the characters and audience are forced to evaluate their own self-image through observing the beliefs, priorities, and the core values of the jurors. During the discussion of the case about the boy killing his father, the jury at the beginning didn’t focus on the other men’s beliefs. When they were first asked about if the boy was guilty or not, all but one said that he was guilty. When the man said that he was not guilty the other gentlemen barely let him talk about his belief about the boy. As time went on while they were trying to make a decision more and …show more content…

Juror number 12 was so worried about missing the baseball game that he got tickets for he was just agreeing with everyone else and not really putting in his actual opinion. When the discussion started to come to a close juror number 12 switched from saying the boy was guilty to not guilty. When asked why he didn’t think he the boy was guilty he couldn’t give an answer. He was so messed up with his priorities that it started to rain, and he knew the game was canceled but was still worried about missing it. When asked why he thought the boy was guilty juror number 5 passed to talk about why he thought that way. As the discussion went on he kept on switching to guilty to not guiltily because he couldn’t make up his mind. He was a business man and wanted to talk about that. At the end some had their priorities right, but some didn’t care that this was a boys life they were dealing with and thought of different things on their minds. In The Truman Show, no one had their priorities straight. All they were worried about was Truman’s life and not

Show More
Related

Juror Three In Twelve Angry Men

186 Words | 1 Pages

As the play went on, Juror Eight started proving how the boy was innocent. In the end Juror Eight changed all the other juror’s minds, except for Juror Three’s. Juror Three ended up changing his vote, not because they changed his mind but because he gave into peer pressure. He still had his prejudice influenced decision, he only gave in because he didn't want it to be a hung jury. Another example, from the same play, is Juror Eight.

Read More

Juror Eight And Juror Three In John Steinbeck's 12 Angry Men

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

Juror's Guilt In 'Twelve Angry Men'

965 Words | 4 Pages

One of the inconsistencies mentioned was the dim lights in the hallway, making it difficult to identify a running figure. Juror 11 touches on this, “... this old man looked down the dark hallway of a tenement and recognized a running figure” (Rose 1.3.53). It can be inferred that with this being an old man that needs help sitting down into a chair, he might not have the greatest eyesight and merely assumed that it was the boy running down the hallway. In summary, the story of Twelve Angry Men goes deep into the complexity of what makes someone innocent or guilty, which can change based on extreme critical thinking and questioning of each piece of evidence. It starts with only Juror 8 and his replica knife, disproving the guarantee of the knife the boy purchased and the knife that was used in the murder being the same knife.

Read More

12 Angry Men Assessment: 12 Angry Men

755 Words | 4 Pages

Though juror 3 has been adamant on the guilt of the young boy it is safe to say that this case meant more to him because the relationship with his son is similar to the relationship between the boy and the father. Since his personal vendetta causes him to forcefully accuse the boy of murder it leaves the jury 11-1 in favor of not guilty. Since carefully reviewing the movie it becomes very prevalent that there has not been enough substantial evidence to convict the boy of murder. Furthermore, with the usage of group think all of the men, accept juror 3 are able to put their pride aside and vote what they truly believe the verdict should be, which is not guilty. Though, one of the more pragmatic points in the film happens after juror 3 becomes infuriated after realizing that all of the men are voting not guilty.

Read More

Why Is Juror 11 Important In 12 Angry Men

511 Words | 3 Pages

The others don't understand what it is like to have no say and not be able to do anything about it. Juror #11 came to america and has the freedom that that the others have but he has not always had that. Something like a baseball game doesn't mean anything to him this is way more important than that this means everything to the boy and every thing to juror #11. He sees something that the others can't and that is freedom the other jurors have never known anything

Read More

Film Review: Jury Duty In The Twelve Angry Men

222 Words | 1 Pages

The Twelve Anger Men in my opinion is an extraordinary movie that depicts a diverse group of twelve men who are charged with jury duty. The twelve men differed in age, race, socio-economic status, and life experiences. The movie begins at the close of a murder trial conducted in a New York City courtroom, as a judge specifically gives the jury men instructions as they prepare to deliberate on the murder trial of a Puerto Rican youth accused of killing his father. Before the men deliberated the judge overly reminded them that a guilty verdict that means an automatic death sentence for the defendant, must be obtained without any reasonable doubt. Subsequently, the movie continues as the group of anger jury-men come face to face with their differences

Read More

Guilty In '12 Angry Men'

471 Words | 2 Pages

When the jury men were in the jury room they were arguing about how the boy was guilty or not guilty. There was one very strong point in the room that was made about how the dad was killed.

Read More

Evidence In 12 Angry Men

1144 Words | 5 Pages

So, in the film at the end all the juror’s came to a conclusion that the boy was innocent even after their own

Read More

Discrimination In 12 Angry Men

1346 Words | 6 Pages

In the movie Twelve Angry Men each character, or juror, has varying personalities. In particular, Jurors 8, 10, and 3 stuck out to me the most. All three of them are completely different people, with little in common. Some are prejudiced, some are not. Most people think: Oh, if you’re on a jury there should be no prejudice whatsoever or it won’t be fair.

Read More

Justice In Twelve Angry Men

990 Words | 4 Pages

It’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send the boy off to die without talking about it first”(Rose 12), also this shows that juror 8 was calm and he wanted to doubt about the case because it’s not easy to send innocent person to death even thought everything was against the kid but when person accept the responsibility being a juror they have to look deeper then any person. Finally when Juror 8 asks them “I’m saying it possible that the boy lost the knife and that someone else stabbed his father with a similar knife. It’s possible” (Rose 22), Then juror 4 bring the knife and jams it into the table

Read More

The Justice System In Twelve Angry Men

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

12 Angry Men Analysis

814 Words | 4 Pages

‘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.

Read More

12 Angry Men Murder Scene Analysis

851 Words | 4 Pages

Juror eight held his ground and convince the men to look over all of the evidence. Juror eight brought out the files, acted out different situations and the murder scene. The men went back and forth for hours fighting about whether or not the boy was guilt of killing his father Slowly one by one the jurors changed their mind from guilty to not guilty. All but juror three changed their mind, he was the last one standing so the vote was 11-1.

Read More

Social Psychology In The Movie Twelve Angry Men

721 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More

The Argument Against The Crowd In The Film 12 Angry Men

961 Words | 4 Pages

Early in the movie all men, except one juror, number eight, agree that the boy is guilty without a doubt. In this case normative influencer took place which is going along with the crowd in order to be liked or accepted. Juror eight was the only person from the beginning of the deliberation to the end of it that thought the boy was innocent and he had to basically break down all the men to understand why it was true. Also some of the men did not care if the boy was a person who deserved a fair trial because in their eyes he was not like them and they knew people like his kind to be

Read More

More about Juror's Self-Image In Twelve Angry Men

Related Topics

Open Document