In the drama, “Twelve Angry Men,” by Reginald Rose. A 19 year old boy is a suspect in the murdering of his father. A jury of twelve men is left to decide his fate, guilty or not guilty. Juror 10 is biased and a hypocrite, which helped them reach a unanimous vote of not guilty.
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 third juror continually mentions how kids are not respectful and how some are just “rotten,” he also is immediate in his “guilty” verdict from the beginning. His disposition towards “bad kids” appears to leak into his decision making, as he attempts to state and agree with every point that can be used to treat the defendant as guilty. The juror is one of the few that are determined on a guilty verdict for the accused and is the last juror to hold this stance until the end of the story. His prejudice against the defendant from his own experiences with his kid is called out in the final scene of the play. Juror three goes on a rant about how he is the “only one who sees” that the kid and all other kids are the same and rotten; where he is only stopped when juror eight says, “It’s not your boy.
People act upon what they think. Within “12 Angry Men”, all of the jurors have an opinion but some voice their more than others. One juror in particular, Juror Ten, voices his opinion about the boy in question. Repeatedly throughout the play, Juror Ten makes many thoughtless and hurtful comments about a certain kind of people. It is clear that Juror Ten’s uncompromising belief that the accused is guilty is because of his dislike for the boy’s race.
Biases are like mechanical pencils. One’s biases may be hidden, but enough pushes will lead them into revealing their hidden prejudices. Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a play that focuses on crime and drama. It tells the story of twelve jurors working together to decide on the fate of a young boy. Through conflicts, agreements, and biases, they must come together to decide on one thing: whether the boy is guilty or innocent.
According to “Mentalfloss.com” Twelve Angry Men was based off of a true jury experience, where the writer Reginald Rose was on a jury where he noticed the intense drama in the jury room. Later he based Twelve Angry Men on the realization drama can happen in the jury room. Twelve Angry Men is a story where 12 men on a jury have to decide whether a boy is guilty of first degree murder. At the beginning all but one juror votes guilty. Throughout the story there are heated discussions between the jurors, and that leads to many jurors switching their votes, formed alliances between the jurors, and making the case personal.
Jury duty is often regarded by most of society as a dull and tiresome obligation. Perhaps one would be inclined to change their assessment if jury duty meant you and eleven other men were the only thing standing between a boy and the electric chair. The teleplay Twelve Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, tells the story of a 1950’s court case wherein a young man, under suspicion of murdering his father, faces the death penalty. The script centers around the twelve men of the jury as they decide whether or not the boy will live or die. As tensions start to run higher, the jurors get into intense arguments, sometimes letting outside biases overtake them.
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 play shows us how prejudice can affect our judgment and decision-making, and how important it is to be aware of our own biases. It highlights the importance of being open-minded and willing to consider all the evidence presented to us. In conclusion, "Twelve Angry Men" is a powerful reminder of the dangers of prejudice and the importance of fairness and impartiality in our justice system. In one hand some jurors believe that the boy is guilty based on their own prejudices and biases.
In the 1950’s the American court primarily depended on evidence and witnesses to prove someone guilty in any case. Being accused of something is a feeling that no one would want to experience. “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a play in which twelve jurors try to interpret a case that revolves around a 16-year-old boy who is accused of murdering his father. Throughout this whole play the jurors are responsible for deciding the destiny of the boy. Rose portrays the contrasting opinions of Juror Three and Juror Eight, who contradict on their perspectives of solicitude, justice, and humanity.
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 “It’s easy to stand in a crowd but it takes courage to stand alone” - Indian lawyer, non-violent, protest activist, and leader Mahatma Gandhi. This suggests that it's easy to follow a crowd and share their same opinion but it takes courage to have your own opinion. This idea fits in the play “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, In this play there are 12 men chosen for jury duty to decide the fate of an 18 year old boy from a poor part of town who allegedly stabbed and killed his father. There were two witnesses that said he did it. One is an old man living on the floor below the boy.
Imagine getting that one dreaded letter in the mail, calling you to do the one thing you didn’t plan the week before your wedding, JURY DUTY. Reginald Rose wrote the play Twelve Angry Men for a television drama after he sat on a jury. The characters in this play are identified not by names but by numbers. Twelve men are confined to a deliberation room after the trial of a 19-year-old boy accused of stabbing and killing his father. Twelve Angry Men illustrates the many dangers of the jury system like, a biased jury, being left with questions, and feeling inconvenienced by jury duty.
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.
