ipl-logo

Persuasive Essay On 12 Angry Men

432 Words2 Pages

Name: Ethan Lang
Teacher: Sasha King
Subject: ELA
Date Completed: N/A

"A jury verdict is just a guess—a well-intentioned guess, generally, but you simply cannot tell fact from fiction by taking a vote." This quote from William Landay, the author of two award-winning crime novels, shows how jury verdicts can be wild guesses that aren’t always accurate. In Reginald Rose's play 12 Angry Men, 12 jurors debate whether to convict a boy of first-degree murder. A few of the jurors start to show signs of aggression toward one another, and things get heated very quickly, partially because of the hot conditions in the room. The jurors can’t come to a unanimous decision, which leads them to examine how the boy and the witnesses might have seen or done the murder. Ultimately, Reginald Rose aims to criticize the American jury system by demonstrating how many jurors don't bother to go deeper into whether the accused is guilty. are prejudiced, and how working conditions affect them. …show more content…

At the beginning of the story, juror 7 brought up an idea to vote if the defendant is guilty, which gets the jurors nowhere. He says, "Let’s vote now." Soon after he wonders if they could “all go home" (page 13). Juror number 7 had no intention of testing witnesses because he was hastily trying to jump to the conclusion and ignorant of the other possibilities that could have arisen. Juror 7 also demanded that "this better be fast” because he’s “got tickets to an event." (page 13). Instead of going in depth into whether the defendant is guilty or not, juror 7 states his own opinion, not openly caring about others. While juror 7 is putting almost no effort into the case, many of the other jurors are biased against the

Show More
Related

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

Ethos, Pathos, Pathos And Logos In 12 Angry Men

1964 Words | 8 Pages

"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.

Read More

12 Angry Men Rhetorical Analysis

681 Words | 3 Pages

This detachment within the Juror, ignoring the life of another person, and choosing not to vote without spending the time to discuss the situation, which may have ended up with the unjust death of an innocent boy. Juror 7 immediately brushes off the severity of the situation, relating to a matter of “anything” when it is in fact anything

Read More

Juror 3 In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

434 Words | 2 Pages

He realizes this when he “contorts [his face] and he begins to pound on [the] table with his fist,” and “seems [to be] about to cry” (Rose 63). This is when Juror 3 realizes that his negative experience with his son has dictated his distaste toward the boy and that he had no real reason to oppose him as much as he did. Though being the most stubborn of the jurors, being able to re-examine the beliefs and opinions he is so fixated on empowers Juror 3 to be able to demonstrate personal accountability, showing how important personal accountability is to confronting one’s past and biases. Throughout the play, because of his loud and opinionated personality, Juror 3 assumes leadership of those voting guilty. This is in stark contrast to Juror 8, a thoughtful person who is willing to give the benefit of the doubt who is the first person to vote not guilty to give the boy a chance.

Read More

Peer Pressure In Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men

1247 Words | 5 Pages

While all of the other men have changed their vote to a not guilty verdict, the third jurors remains with his original belief. Even in the very end of the play, he acts hostile against the others trying to change his mind, in saying “Do you think I’m an idiot or something?” (Rose 72). One juror that seems almost impervious to argumentative fallacies and peer pressure is Juror 8. Juror almost displays the ideal juror, and the rest tend to mimic the flaws of the system.

Read More

Twelve Angry Men: Reasonable Doubt In The Justice System

651 Words | 3 Pages

Reginald Rose shows that reasonable doubt is an important part of the justice system in the play because it refutes evidence shown and also determines the outcome of a defendant's life.

Read More

Examples Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men

915 Words | 4 Pages

Throughout the whole play, Juror Ten remains stubborn in his decision that the defendant is guilty. Yet, at the end the finally sees that there is reasonable doubt (62). Interestingly enough, on the previous page Juror Ten is called out by Juror Four (60). The foreman also has some prejudice at the beginning of the case. He brings up another case that is similar to the one they are doing.

Read More

Examples Of Bias In 12 Angry Men

435 Words | 2 Pages

In the mind of juror number 3, the defendant is like his own kid that left him. Due to the resemblance to his own child, this clouds his judgment, and nothing can sway his decision to assume that the defendant is guilty. Juror number 3’s perspective of the defendant and the case is influenced by the fact that he sees a resemblance with his own son who left him, so he is biased as to whether he views him as guilty or

Read More

What Is 12 Angry Men Jury Duty

1108 Words | 5 Pages

In a testament to both his own stubbornness and loyalty to the guilty cause, Juror #10 rebuffs every argument made by the not guilty party. Equally important, Juror #3 is willfully obtuse to the revelations made by the other jurors, marking him as the twelfth and final juror to vote not guilty. In the end, it takes the other men demanding his line of thinking for him to finally declare “not guilty” (Rose 115). Juror #3, being the main antagonist, is stuck in his pessimistic mindset and refuses to change his decision regarding the defendant’s fate. At times, it’s clear he is blowing off rationale for the sake of maintaining his guilty verdict.

Read More

Examples Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men

741 Words | 3 Pages

Similarly, Juror 3's class prejudice causes him to be suspicious of the defendant and to view the evidence in a biased

Read More

Minority Influence In 12 Angry Men

1458 Words | 6 Pages

This movie is the best example of minority influence where in the earlier stage only one juror no. 8 says defendant is not guilty but in the end of the movie we see that he is able to influence all the jurors in a very logical manner which I am going to point out later so that all the jurors lastly says the defendant is not guilty. Minority influence is more likely to occur if the point of view of the minority is consistent, flexible, and appealing to the majority. The juror no. 8 doesn’t know defendant is guilty or not guilty but he has only doubt in his mind which he trying to clear during the entire film and with which he also able to clear the views of other

Read More

Fallacies In 12 Angry Men

1404 Words | 6 Pages

The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar

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

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

More about Persuasive Essay On 12 Angry Men

Related Topics

Open Document