12. Angry Men Digging deep is an important part of solving a murder mystery, which is the reason some jury cases end in faulty results. Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, is a play about a son allegedly killing his father. The jury had a great deal of evidence to sort through before reaching a verdict. After lots of discussion, the jury comes to the final ruling of not guilty which sets the boy free from his potential punishment which is the death penalty.
Have you ever been in a situation where you want to fit into the crowd by disguising who you truly are? 12 Angry Men by Sidney Lumet shows the crime and drama going on in a jury room. In this play there are twelve jurors that have to decide whether or not an 18 year old kid is guilty or not. There is only one juror that believes that the kid is not guilty so he must single handedly try to convince the rest of the jurors to change their minds. The theme of this play is that you should stand for what you believe with courage even if people don’t agree with you.
The Power of Three Perspectives One can be easily mislead or persuade in a direction they do not agree with. However this is not the case with Juror 8 (Mr. Davis) in the film 12 Angry Men. In this film, twelve jurors try to identify whether or not the convicted eighteen year-old boy is guilty of murdering his father with a switchblade knife. If the puerto-rican boy is found guilty, he will be sent to the electric chair and sentenced to death.
In all facets of human life there is a constant pressure. One of the most potent forms of this is peer pressure. It affects how humans make decisions, in all facets of an everyday life. Peer is a force that can bring out the best and worst of humanity. Additionally, in the context of Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men peer pressure is used to highlight the best and worst aspects of the American judicial system circa 1954.
12 Angry Men, By Reginald Rose, Drama. Text 1 talked about Juror 10’s point of view on the defendant and Juror 10 letting his emotions overcome him with the defendant. It shows that Juror 10 is prejudiced and did not like the defendant. Text 2 is about juror 3 and his point of view on the defendant and how juror 3's personal problems were overcoming him during the case. The central idea of text 1 is to see situations clearly and not to let emotions overcome you.
One piece of evidence that proves the boy’s innocence is accuracy of the Old man’s testimony. In the play the jurors are arguing over whether or not the man heard the phrase “I’m going to kill you”. According to evidence, the noise of the train passing would be much too loud to hear anything,
Themes of Twelve Angry Men There are themes of justice and stubbornness in Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose because all of the jurors want to prove the kid is either guilty or innocent and no one wants to change their vote. There are themes of justice in Twelve Angry Men because all of the jurors want to prove the kid is either guilty or innocent. After the jurors have their first vote to decide whether or not a boy who presumably stabbed his own father is innocent or guilty,Juror eight was the only one who voted innocent. When asked why he did not vote guilty, he tells them “I want to talk for a while.
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.
What if one day, twenty years from now you were chosen to discuss the fate of an eighteen year old boy. What would you do? Would you take your job and do it responsibly, or would you do it like some of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men and blow it off so you can finish early and leave. Even though there was a lot of controversy in that jury room, I noticed that Jurors 3,7, and 9 used their personalities, beliefs, and views of their responsibilities to bring the boy on trial to justice. This very excitable juror is the last to change his vote, and while his stubbornness could be seen as being based more on emotions than facts, he starts off with his little notebook with facts of the case and tries to insist that he has no personal feelings on the matter.
12 Angry Men is a Fictional Film about a Murder Trial and 12 Jurors who argue and yap at each other for an hour and thirty five minutes. 12 Angry Men is a film about a murder trial with 12 jurors deciding whether or not a young boy is guilty of murdering his father. The film starts out calm and collective with the Jurors reviewing evidence for their decision, but as the film goes on, tensions rise due to many factors. The jurors, even at first, disagreed with each other, which caused arguments over the evidence. The weather was very hot and also made everyone on edge because they had to sit in a hot room together arguing.
Overlooked and often forgotten, wilderness is surrounding the envionments humans live in. Wilderness does not have to be a untarnished and completely protected. Just as families have a place to call home, wilderness provides a home and a place of refuge for animals and plants and other non human living organizims. They make up the balance needed to sustance the wilderness. How humans and wilderness intact is what will cause florecment or produce neglect.
The American Government is made up of three branches: judicial, legislative, and executive. Americans are very fortunate to have a judicial system in the United States, which is based on the idea that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The same problems still happen today in 2018 that happened in 1957 when the movie Twelve Angry Men by MGM was made. Common reasons jury duty is not popular include taking time off work, not getting the same amount of pay as if one is at work, and simply just not wanting to be there. People will always be biased from their own experiences.
Through the play, ‘Twelve Angry Men’ established in 1957, the playwright, Reginald Rose signifies the importance of both rational attitude and emotions when making crucial decisions. Gathering on the “hottest day of the year” in a “large, drab, bare” jury room is throbbing for most jurors’ present. They have gathered to reach a ‘fair’ verdict and follow the judge’s instruction to “deliberate honestly and thoughtfully” as prejudice and experiences cloud their judgements. Whilst every juror has a different approach to the case, Rose demonstrates that both emotion and reason are used in the process of decision making. Taking decision without the interference of personal life leads one taking a fair judgement.
Several feature films of the 1950’s showcase a variety of war and criminal justice themes, specifically 12 Angry Men directed by Sidney Lumet. Released in 1957, the film focuses on a contentious case, where twelve diverse jurors must collaborate and determine the fate of the defendant. With seemingly substantial evidence, viewers are taken into the jury room, where all but one juror are quick to return a guilty verdict. Although a unanimous finding is required, juror number eight, played by Henry Fonda, questions the evidence, unable to return a verdict without further examination of the documentations and testimonies. Insisting the jury take additional time to analyze reasonable doubt within the evidence, Henry Fonda utilizes critical thinking and reasoning skills to depict through the case.
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.
