In his play Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose brings us back in time to 1957, to a jury room of a New York Court of Law where one man, Juror #8, confronts the rest of the jury to look at a homicide case without prejudice, and ultimately convinces Juror #2, a very soft-spoken man who at first had little say in the deliberation. Throughout the play, many of the jurors give convincing arguments that make one think about whether the boy is “guilty” or “not guilty.” Ultimately, one is convinced by ethos, logos, and pathos. We can see ethos, logos, and pathos having an effect on Juror #2 as he begins as a humble man and changes into someone brave at the end. Although all three modes play a part in convincing Juror #2, pathos was the most influential
After watching 12 Angry Men, I was very inspired by juror 8 ' argument techniques. His eye contact, body language, tone, the persuasive techniques he used like induction, pathos, ethos and logos should be studied and analyzed in a very detailed, precise way. These factors were strong enough to change 11 angry men 's mind and to vote not guilty, even juror 3 who is the most stubborn. 12 Angry Men 's message toward individuals and the society as a whole is to think once and twice before judging, how to have a successful, convincing argument and most importantly, it encourage everyone to stand up for your opinion. One of the reasons why everyone should speak up is sometimes other people are thinking the same way, but they are not brave enough to express their opinion.
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.
Imagine this, you are on jury for murder. If convicted, you are sentenced the death penalty. The only thing that is debating whether you get to live is the decision of twelve men. Our justice system seeks many potential dangers. Stereotypes, perception of inconvenience, and difference in the jurors point of view are dangers within our justice system.
Twelve Correct Jurors ¨Murder in the first degree… premeditated homicide… is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts¨ (Rose, 9). A 19-year-old ¨boy¨ is on trial for the gruesome stabbing of his father. In Twelve Angry Men adapted by Reginald Rose, the jurors came to the right decision; in this case, with the evidence presented, the 19-year-old man is innocent! The woman who testified couldn't have seen it, the old man couldn't have heard it, and a trained knife fighter—like the man was—wouldn't have left a stab wound like the one left in the man´s father.
8th juror well, I guess we talk " "10th juror boy-boy!" " 3rd juror the man's a killer" These quotes tell us that the 10th is rude and the 3rd juror is stubborn. But the personalities of all the jurors are shown when all the jurors are questioned about why they chose guilty or not guilty. The playwright has intended to have many different people with various past experiences placed on a range of justice or personal needs so that when they clash, all the human emotions are portrayed in a striking
When Juror Eleven said, “I beg your pardon, but maybe you don’t understand the term, ‘reasonable doubt.’” Juror Seven’s responded with statements like,”Who do you think you are to talk to me like that?” and “He comes over here running for his life, and before he can even take a big breath he’s telling us how to run the show”(53). Juror Seven’s words show prejudice against someone of another race and he claims that Juror Eleven shouldn’t be able to speak his mind. Eventually, he understood that his prejudice wasn’t needed and he
8th juror appeals to their sense of pathos and pity by saying “this boy’s been kicked around all his life… He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.” While this has nothing to do with the case, he hopes to appeal to their humanity in order to get them to give him a chance in these deliberations.
In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the central idea is that pride and prejudiced blind us from the truth. Twelve Angry Men is about twelve jurors chosen to determine the verdict for a sixteen year old defendant for a premeditated murder trial. These twelve jurors are asked to deliberate diligently, separating the facts from the fancy. However, holding different opinionated views on the trial; they bicker all day long until a shocking confession is revealed. For example, Juror 10 voted guilty until the last pages of the play.
The U.S. justice system is a concept that has come under scrutiny many times over the 200-plus years of its existence, but which still exists in much the same form today as when it was first devised. “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a theatrical drama that portrays many of the merits and faults of the jury-based judicial system. Some of the pros that are shown include how the input of many different people and backgrounds can result in a greater truth being uncovered, and how the voice of even a single man can be heard and considered by all jury members. Some cons that the play illustrates include how there can instances in which jury members merely go with the immediate popular opinion on the verdict, whether because they are susceptible to peer pressure or merely because they’d rather the case be over with as quickly as possible. Rose himself seems to be generally in favor of the current U.S. justice system, as the characters who represent the negative aspects of the system are shown to be hateful and irrational men, while the opposite is true for the people who represent the system’s more positive qualities.
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
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’ 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.
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.
In a New York City, an 18-year-old male from a slum is on a trial claiming that he is responsible for his father death by stabbing him After both sides has finished their closing argument in the trial, the judge asks the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty or not The judge informs the jury decided the boy is guilty, he will face a death sentence as a result of this trial The jurors went into the private room to discuss about this case. At the first vote, all jurors vote guilty apart from Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), he was the only one who voted “Note Guilty” Juror 8 told other jurors that they should discuss about this case before they put a boy into a death sentence
