Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethics quizlett
Ethics quizlett
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethics quizlett
Ethics quizlett
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
Juror Eight was the only man from the beginning of the play who stuck by his belief that the kid was innocent. He stood alone in front of the other jurors and defended himself from the other jurors, such as Juror Three and Juror Ten. Jurors Three and Ten were adamant that the kid was guilty and refused to listen to Juror Eight’s “nonsense”. Juror Eight’s evidence and speeches persuaded all the other jurors to change their vote from not guilty, except for Juror Three. The only reason Juror Three had it out for the kid was because he himself had some issues with kids respecting their parents, and specifically their fathers.
"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.
Although 3 does change his mind in the end, he is the last to change so he is the leader for the guilty side. In the end, the reader can look at figure 1. and take away the fact that juror 8 is the main character, and that jurors 3 and 8 causes the main conflict in the
Juror number 9 says “Gentlemen, that’s a very sad thing – to mean nothing. A man like this needs to be quote, to be listen to” (Juror 9). In this case juror 9 shows how sympathetic he can be and how convincing he can be. In the film Twelve Angry Men jurors 8 and 9 use cultural background , actions , and experiences witnesses and other jurors to persuade the other jurors to find the boy not guilty. Culture the values, beliefs norms and behaviors of certain groups of people plays a huge role in the film Twelve Angry Men.
In the three act play, Twelve Angry Men, two jurors specifically let their characteristics get the best of them in deciding on whether the boy was guilty or not. The strongest personality of them all was in Juror Three. Juror Three was described as a very forceful and opinionated man. He believed that there was no opinion more right than his own and refused to consider the thoughts and beliefs of those surrounding him. From the very beginning of the play, he came on strong with the undoubting belief that the boy was guilty.
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.
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.
Leadership and roles are depicted throughout the whole movie by many different jurors. The designated leader of the jury group was Juror #1. Juror #1 was when they first entered into the room but Juror #8 took the emergent role when he declined to agree with a guilty verdict. His rejection to agree in a guilty verdict was crucial since he voiced his uncertainty to the evidence at a early stage.
12 Angry Men is a movie about twelve jurors who discussing about a murder case of a teenage boy. The play is set in New York City Court of Law jury room in 1957. The decision to sentence the boy to death penalty lies upon these twelve gentlemen. Although, eleven of them found him guilty based on some ambiguous evidence, one man voted not guilty and started a promotion amongst them. This man is the one we should call the hero of the day since he pointed out all the missing points of the case leads to the innocent of the teenage boy.
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.
Twelve Angry Men dates back to 1957 when twelve jurors are sitting in front of a murder case. The murder case regards a son being accused of stabbing his father to death. As the jury heads into their room to choose their verdict, the vote begins eleven to one. Only one man in that entire room could find the defendant not guilty. That one man, Mr. Davis, decided to be the difference.
‘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.
This play sets up a murder mystery that keeps the audience on their feet and looking for answers. The jury consisted of twelve stubborn men. Eleven men found the boy guilt, while juror eight was the only man that wanted to review the case over again to make sure the jury was making the correct decision. All eleven jurymen were set on the boy being guilty and were trying to convince juror eight that he was guilty.
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.