More handpicked essays just for you.
12 angry men summary
Reaction to 12 angry men in terms of leadership
Theme of conflict in twelve angry men film
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
When asked why he voted not guilty, juror eight stated “Look, this boy has been kicked around all his life. You know---living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. He spent a year in and a half in an orphanage while his father served a jail term for forgery. That’s not a very good head start. He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years.
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
“12 Angry Men,” written by Reginald Rose, is a drama or play about a boy who is put on trial for murdering his father. 12 jurors are put into the jury room to discuss and come up with the boy's verdict, but they can't come up with a unanimous decision. Juror 8 stands alone with his opinion of “not guilty,” but he isn’t the only one who convinces the rest of the jury for “not guilty.” Juror 9 also has an impact on the vote to be unanimous in favor of “not guilty.” Juror 9 played an important role for the verdict to be “not guilty” by trying to prove other points against the boy being “guilty.”
What if juror 8 did not have the courage to freely state his opinion? The innocent boy would be dead for doing absolutely nothing.
The jurors continually exhibit the opposite of the aforementioned emotions and beliefs. After the protest by the 8th Juror about the oddly quick guilty verdict voted on by the jurors, the 7th Juror dismissed him continually, “It’s just that we’re talking about somebody’s life here. I mean, we can’t decide in five minutes. Suppose we’re wrong? 7TH
Juror 8 took it into his own hands to prove the prosecution wrong and purchase the same knife at a
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.
Juror 3’s background, personality, and unique experiences coalesce to form his perspective and judgment, which is critical when coming to a well-rounded
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.
While both end up voting the same way, their approaches throughout the majority of the film are vastly different. To start, the third juror is much more factual, stating in the film, “Okay let’s get the facts… and he ran to the door of his apartment and the boy!”(12 Angry Men) This immediately shows the viewer that Juror 3 will base the majority of his argument in fact. In contrast, Juror 8 feels that communicating with the other jurors and piecing together their views is a better way to solve the case. This is shown when Juror 8 says, “There were eleven votes guilty.
Have your ever thought about the flaws in our US Legal System shown in Twelve Angry Men? In our US Legal System, we have major flaws that we have found to realize, but never fixed. These flaws show how the US Legal System treats the citizens. During the play, we see the judge on the first page mention, "I urge you to deliberate honestly and thoughtfully". This was not done during the play, which this'll show how the jury system can be like.
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.
Other jurors feel annoyed after listening to Juror 8 statements.
