12 Angry Men - 8

1097 WordsNov 2, 20125 Pages
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. There were jurors that represented trustworthiness. Juror #8…show more content…
Because of his experiences with his own son, he learned to hate the defendant and made him a direct reflection of his own son. Juror #3 believed that one bad apple made the rest rotten as well. He built such anger and intolerance for his own son that he carried the same pre-conceived feelings and opinions as soon as he entered the courtroom. Juror #3 was the hardest to convince as he was the most irate and easily agitated of all twelve jurors. Faced with eleven others that were certain of the defendant’s innocence, he proceeded to stand his ground and disputed every single fact thrown his way, regardless if his argument made sense or not. In the end, after he saw the picture of him and his son, he realized that his enemy was not the defendant but his own son. Juror #3 recognized that his vendetta was for a cause driven towards the wrong person. After battling with his moral and ethical dilemma, he swallowed his pride and eventually voted not guilty. There were also other barriers or reasons that have affected some of the jurors in their decision-making. Juror #3 thinks that because of what happened to him and his son that the defendant deserved to be beaten up and battered by his father. Because of Juror #3’s past he felt he deserved to have the defendant sent to the chair; that the defendant dying was retribution for what happened to him and his son. Juror #10 believed that the defendant had it coming. Because of where the
Open Document