Many people, if asked what they would prefer, would prefer to read the book instead of watching the movie. It could be because the movie will always leave some parts from the story out. It seems like directors of the movie always leave out parts from the book, only incorporating the important parts from the story. Some also say that they prefer to leave the descriptions of things in the book up to their imagination. Also, when you are reading the book, you get to read the main characters point of view on things.
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.
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
The Film 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, is a film written about the American jury system. In the film, as in any part in life, emotions are a tricky thing; This is especially true for the 3rd, 7th, and 8th jurors. One of the main themes in the film questions that of the emotions of the jurors. That question is: Is it possible to keep personal prejudice and emotions out of a trial? Is this even a good or bad thing?
Twelve Angry Men is in many ways a love letter to the American legal justice system. We find here eleven men, swayed to conclusions by prejudices, past experience, and short-sightedness, challenged by one man who holds himself and his peers to a higher standard of justice, demanding that this marginalized member of society be given his due process. We see the jurors struggle between the two, seemingly conflicting, purposes of a jury, to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. It proves, however, that the logic of the American trial-by-jury system does work.
The children who come out of slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society.’ Juror 4 gives this very controversial statement. It involves presumption of the juror that might be from his personal experience or social influence. He has assumed that people born in slums are criminals but actually there are people who are not criminals. Fallacy 6: ‘The boy lied and you know it’ -
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.
12 Angry Men Essay The movie 12 Angry Men, is about a son who may have committed murder, killing his father, and 12 jurors have to either prove him innocent or guilty. There are jurors who are fixed on saying that the 19 year old boy is guilty of murdering his father, but there are other jurors who are saying he is innocent until they have proof to say that he is guilty. There are many instances when the jurors use fallacies, deductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning when they are trying to prove either that the boy is guilty or innocent.
He also made a red herring fallacy during the demonstration of old man witness. iii) Fallacy of begging the question was made by him immediately as he has his entry in the room, claiming that, “everyone knows that he is guilty”. iv) When asked to defend his statement, he repeats that everyone knows he is guilty, thus creating Circular reasoning fallacy. v) Attack on the person was also made by him while stating, “The kid 's a dangerous killer, you could see it... He stabbed his own father, four inches into the chest.
Twelve Angry Men “A person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” In the play, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a nineteen years old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence were presented, the three that are weak include the one of a kind knife, the old men who heard the words “I’m going to kill you!” and the woman who is in question because of her glasses. Based on these, the boy is not guilty.
‘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.
Reasonable doubt proves that critical thinking is important when someone’s life is in someone else’s hands. “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, is a play about twelve jury members who must deliberate and decide the fate of a man who is accused of murdering his father. These twelve men must unanimously agree on whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty without reasonable doubt. Just like the jurors, the readers of this play have not witnessed the crime that took place before the trial started. Everyone, but the writer, is in the dark about who committed the crime.
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.
Traits of an Extraordinary Leader Many movies have an ever so short life span and die off somewhat quickly after they are released. The film Twelve Angry Men depicts many traits that still engage with people in the present day, and that is what has given the film a long period of popularity. This movie shows many things when it comes to different people, life styles, and backgrounds; Mr. Davis is who I am going to focus on. In the film Twelve Angry Men, Juror number eight, Mr. Davis, forces the characters and audience to evaluate his role of leadership by analyzing his beliefs, attitudes, and actions.
“ – He makes use of the fallacy of hasty generalization in both these statements. 2) “The boy don't even speak english properly “ -- Here he uses the fallacies of “Attack on the person” and “Irrelevant conclusion” which are definitely justified as we may think what has speaking proper English got to do with his testimony. There are several other fallacious arguments put forward by some other jurors as well, which can be summarized as follows: 1) Juror#7 : Some of his statements are: “Suppose the whole building fell off…” – This is a fallacy of “Irrelevant conclusion”.
