12 Angry Men - 12

Similarly ,In Twelve Angry Men Juror 8 is a smart and moral juror who is willing to stand against all the other jurors for what he thinks is right. He is the main protagonist who believes a boy accused with murdering his father deserves a discussion prior to a guilty verdict. Although all the other jurors initially voted guilty, juror 8 believed that the jurors should not “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”(Juror 8, 12). Throughout the play Juror 8 combats the pressure from the other Jurors to just vote guilty and manages to convince his fellow Jurors one by one that there in fact is “reasonable doubt”(Judge, 6) and convinces them to arrive at a “not guilty”(Juror 3, 72) verdict. Reginald Rose extols Juror 8’s pursuit of justice through his success. Not only did Juror 8 stand by his principles and have the courage to stand against all the other Jurors, he also had the wits to convince his fellow jurors to change their verdict. Through these actions Juror 8 brings justice to the courts of New York city saving the life of a young boy.

The movie 12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are on jury duty. The case is on the murder of an old man, and the man's son is the suspect. It starts off with 11 of the men voting that the boy is guilty and 1 voting that the boy is not guilty. Throughout the movie, the men go back and forth restating evidence and information that was giving in court, bringing up several different possibilities, and changing their votes. In the end the men all agree that the boy is not guilty and then go their separate ways. However, there are so many clues and evidence that the boy was the one who killed the old man, he is guilty.

The setting of 12 Angry Men is a jury deliberation room where the jurors are and required to decide the guilt or innocence of an 18 year old that is accused of committing first-degree murder by stabbing his father with a switchblade knife. Witnesses were presented to give evidence of hearing a quarrel; hearing a threat to kill, and have seeing the boy run away. Another witness swore to having seen the boy stabbing his father from a window across from where the murder occurred. Eleven jurors were convinced the boy was guilty and deserved the death penalty. One raised questions he felt had not been asked or had not been pursued by the defense.

Inside a room where life or death decisions are made, twelve men sit with wandering thoughts. The made up minds of some jurors are to send a boy to his death without a second thought, but one other juror may change that. Inside of the play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose, Juror 8 has the persuasive evidence to change the minds of his fellow Jurors and save a boy from his execution. The other Juror’s seem like they won’t budge with their mind set on the decision of guilty, but after Juror 8 proves his thoughts on the decision of innocent, he may just be able to save a young life.

12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are the jury for an 18 year old accused of murder. The judge states in the opening scene that it is a premeditated murder in the 1st degree, if found guilty will automatically receive the death penalty. The 18 year old male is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade, in their home. The prosecutors have several eye witness testimonies, and all of the evidence that they could need to convict the 18 year old male. In the movie it takes place on the hottest day of the year in New York City. There are 12 jurors whom are to decide if the evidence is enough to convict the teen of murder in the first degree. In the first initial vote it is 11-1. The only way that the jurors could turn in

In the play Twelve Angry Men, Juror number 8’s role is to try and decide whether a 16 year old teenager is guilty or not of killing his father. He is especially important to the play because he votes not guilty because he had a reasonable doubt, and that meant that he would have to use tiny clues and facts to see if the boy was in fact guilty.

12 Angry Men is a movie that start off in a courtroom, in New York City, New York, during the late 1950’s. During the courtroom procedure, the defendant is an eighteen-year-old boy that is being accused of killing his father. With that being say, the judge that doing this murder trail states if the young adult is found guilty for first-degree murder of his father then he will go to jail and serve the death penalty. 11 out of 12 jurors had voted the defendant guilty for the murder of his father. The one that voted not guilty happen to be Juror #8.

The movie 12 angry men starts with teenager boy who is accused in the murder of his father. After that scene, 12 men are discussing boy’s fate in the deliberation room. All twelve jurors must vote and decide the fate of that boy. Evidences shows that boy is guilty and he will be sent to death penalty. However, one of the jurors is not agree with the decision of others.

12 Angry Men is a wonderful film that sheds light upon both the greatness and the weakness of the Jury system. It dramatizes the flaws inherent in the Jury system with élan and at the same time, it brings out a sense of positivism about the same. It puts forth the idea that while humans do not work on pure logic and are primarily governed by emotion, justice can still prevail by a careful conglomeration of the two. The film commences with eleven out of twelve jurors convinced that the accused ought to be convicted without having discussed any of the evidence put forth in the proceedings of the case and only one juror arguing that they ought to discuss the case further to arrive at a conclusion whose consequences are of that enormity.

317), drawing you in with each of the 12 men's take on the evidence they were presented with during the trial. The accused murderer, a young man on trail for stabbing his father to death, is seen only briefly, as the film focusses on the conflict between the 12 jurors, the titular 12 angry men, as they debate what verdict to deliver, knowing the stacks are literally life and death, as a guilty verdict will result in the death penalty. The 12 men, identified only by their juror numbers and occupations, assemble in a bare, uncomfortable jury room and quickly establish that most are prepared to render a guilty verdict and are eager to leave. But Fonda’s Juror 8 appeals for proper deliberation of reasonable doubt with a young man’s life in their hands. The men begin stating their arguments, debating the evidence presented during the trial and try to convince one another of the accused’s guilt or

12 Angry Men is a movie about 12 jurors determining a man’s innocence and guilt. A boy is accused of stabbing his father to death and if found guilty will be sentenced to death. The movie presents a diverse group of 12 jurors with diverse traits. The movie illustrates the advantages and disadvantages of verdict making, group progressive phases, headship qualities and models, social influence strategies and endings, and the foundations of social supremacy.

Twelve Angry Man has a lot of great, hidden themes throughout the movie. One of these themes is that prejudice can block someone from the truth. This theme is present throughout the movies characters, more specifically, in the jurors three, seven, and ten. The third juror is the old man that yells a lot, swears a lot, and insults almost every person that changes their votes. He believes the kid on trial is guilty because he specifically said, “I will kill you;” no matter of evidence changes his vote. We find out at the end the reason he wants this kid to be on death road. The third juror breaks down mentally in front of the other jurors, he wants this boy to go to jail because he talks about how these “kids” do not respect their ends. This

12 Angry Men was one of the most critically acclaimed movies of its time, even gaining several Oscar nominations. The movie tugged into strings that in the course of watching the movie, or even after, continuously made me think. How will one person convince eleven other jurors of reasonable doubt and change their votes from guilty to not guilty? Twelve jurors have individual stands and differences that may have been affected by their experiences and upbringing. Every person in the movie represents current ethical and moral dilemmas that plague even individuals of today. Each character also represents values and personal growth that we already have or hope to achieve.

The movie 12 Angry Men was released in 1957 and depicts a story that takes place in that decade. At first, it comes across as a simple movie: twelve jurors go into a room and they have to come to a unanimous decision in a murder case. They gather in a room because they are presented with a problem, to which they must find a solution, through interpreting and evaluating information, that was presented during the trial. However, before any discussions take place, on the outcome of a first vote, the audience already feels a tension, because one juror votes “not guilty” while others take a stance convinced that the accused is guilty.

The film 12 Angry Men opens up the scene of twelve jurors in a court case where a young boy was accused of murdering his father. The jurors move to an empty conference room in order to discuss the boys trial and contemplate the trial. With a show of hands, eleven out of the twelve claim that the boy is guilty without looking deeply analyzing the case. Only one juror, juror 9, who was an architect, had reasonable doubt that the boy could actually be innocent. Throughout the film, juror 9 must convince the other eleven jurors that the boy is actually innocent, starting a debate between the jurors. The purpose of this argument reveals that despite the fact that juror 9 was out numbered, one to eleven, he was able to come up with supportive evidence