12 Angry Men Act 10 Analysis

“Three: You sat right in court and heard the same things I did. The man’s a dangerous killer. You could see it.”

Furthermore, the jurors made significant inferences that assured them the defendant was guilty. An individual makes an inference when they conclude an argument by analyzing evidence and by applying reasoning. For instance, the broker believed that the defendant was capable of being a murderer because he grew up in a bad environment. The broker also claimed that the defendant was guilty because he bought a distinctive switch knife that was identical to the murder weapon. In addition, the messenger and the architect inferred that the witnesses’ testimonies were tangible evidence that proved the defendant did commit the crime. For example, the old man claimed that he heard the defendant yell at his father, “I'm going to kill you.” Before he saw

12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a twisting story where a son is accussed of stabbing his father to death. Twelve strangers are told to listen to this court case and are then stuck in a small, hot room where they are told to decide on a verdict, whether or not the kid lives or dies. The jury finally decides on the verdict of : Not Guilty. Three major facts that influence the juries agreement that the accussed is not guilty include doubts of the murder weapon, doubts of the old man’s testimony, and doubts of the lady across the street’s testimony.

The film 12 angry men was about twelve jurors and the case they were assign too. The case was about a teenage boy murdering his father with a knife. The jurors job was to state their beliefs about the facts of the case. In the film it showed social psychological concepts that displayed the juror’s opinions and beliefs of the case when it came to finding the defendant guilty or not guilty. The three social psychological concepts in the film I chose to write about is prejudice, informational conformity, and naïve realism.

The movie Twelve Angry Men is about the twelve jurors that could adjust their influence in a decision-making process for conviction an eighteen years-old boy, whether the boy guilty or not guilty in murdering of his father. It represents a perfect example for applicable of a work group development framework. It also has examples of influence techniques among a group’s members. This paper is looking at those specific examples in the movie and focusing in analysis the reasons why Juror 8 is so much more effective than others in the meeting.

The personality of juror # 10 was one of hatefulness and anger. This juror was prejudice against the kid because he was from the slums. Juror # 10 said something in the movie about not being able to trust people who are from the slums. Juror # 10 had several outbursts and had a heinous attitude through most of the movie. Juror # 10 was the one who did most of the talking, when it came to trying to convince Juror # 8 that the kid was guilty. There was another Juror that had a roundabout same type of personality coming into the juror’s room as juror # 10. The juror # 3 was also bitter and obstinate towards the others, specifically when it came down to several of the other jurors changing their opinion of guilty to not guilty. Juror # 3 became hot headed and very loud and obnoxious towards everyone. Both Juror # 10 and juror # 3 were only looking at the eye witness testimony,

Juror 10 is a closed minded older man that uses a lot of stereotypes to make his decisions on whether or not the accused is really guilty or innocent. For example, Juror 10 yells, “You said it there. I don't want any part of them, believe me” (12 Angry Men). At this point during play, he was using where the accused lived and grew up

Daily there are thousands of people being found guilty for a crime they did not commit because of a prejudiced judge.Sidney Lumet and Reginald Rose the writers and directors of 12 Angry Men wrote and produced a play about 12 jurors that briefly discuss a trial and come to a verdict , personal issues develop which causes conflict and only makes the process more grueling. The accused boy is being found guilty for murdering his father, 12 jurors are put in a hot room in New York and spend hours briefly viewing the scenario. Although one might think that the justice system should be left in the hands of citizens ,the director and writer of 12 Angry Men , Sidney Lumet and Reginald Rose demonstrate that the United States justice system is unfair and is simply corrupt , inefficient , and injustice due to the jurors biases minds, ignorant attitude ,and the lack of time and energy put in the trial while trying to decide a verdict.

The play “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose reveals human nature, personal experiences, and the men’s effect on the justice system. The play brings out how as humans we jump to conclusions without thinking things through, we don’t like to take the time and look over things, and we use our own experiences and use them to help influence our thinking. In the play, everyone but juror number eight jumps to conclusions about the young man on trial. Number eight helps guide most of the other jurors to look over the case and discover what really happened through him being unsure and not jumping to conclusions. Still, some of the others stay stuck in what they think happened. The jurors use their own past experiences to shape what they

Recently in my AP English class, we watched The film “Twelve Angry Men”. The film was unique in the fact that it only had one setting, the Jury Room. The film showed no one else but the jurors and the warden, who all remained completely nameless throughout the entire movie and we're only identified by their juror numbers. The jurors were drastically different which I believe added more diversity and made the plot more complex and intriguing to the audience. I don't believe the film had a specific intended audience, I believe that this show can be appreciated by all audiences because it shows that reasonable doubt is a much easier state of mind then certainty.

From their first introduction, it is obvious that jurors 3 and 10 stand out from their negativity toward the case, stemming from their prejudice against the accused boy. Whilst Rose has juror 10’s thoughts apparent from the beginning – “the kids who crawl outa those places (slums) are real trash” – it is only toward the finale that we see 10’s true sinister point of view – “they are–wild animals”, “they’re violent, they’re vicious, they’re ignorant, and they will cut us up”. Whilst juror 3 shares a similar stance, his prejudice targets the youth over slum people. As it is revealed that he has had an inconvenient history with his son, 3 uses the trial as revenge on him, thinking all kids are the same, and placing himself in the position of the murdered father, as he eventually “[could] feel that knife goin’ in”. As mentioned by juror 8, the moral compass, “it’s very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this”, bringing attention to a recurringly problem with the validity of the justice system. “Prejudice obscures the

I believe the ideological message this film conveys is that our criminal justice system needs to do a better job instilling fairness and justice in the court system. Therefore, social status or social conditions will not be the determining factor for conviction based on inequality beliefs. I think this film being made in the early 50’s, is still in line with the issue of race relations as we encounter discrimination even today.

12 Angry Men is a movie centered around a murder case and the 12 men that are in charge of providing a verdict for a kid charged of first degree murder of his own father. In this movie, the characters have to face a long and grueling procedure of figuring out how to charge the kid after a six day long trial and hours long deliberation between the jurors. The film of 12 Angry Men has several key psychological aspects to it that can be accurately and summarily described.

12 Angry Men, a 1957 film directed by Sidney Lumet, based off of a teleplay by Reginald Rose, exemplifies various forms of human communication amongst a small group of men. After the court dispute, the jury had been announced to their destination. Twelve strongly expressive men accumulate into a small group in the court where they will all come to a consensus on whether a boy is to be charged guilty or innocent. The group of twelve men that gathered into this small room, all displayed unique and strong personalities—whether it was a strong aggressive attitude, a strong devoted will, or even a strong mouse personality. Their objective was to all agree towards one single decision—guilty or innocent. If only one person decides to say

An individual's past experiences can have an incredible impact on the way they think and behave for years to come. So, the past have a significant impact on an individual. In my own life, I have had past experiences that have affected me to be the person I am today. One example is, whenever I walked through the downtown part of Edmonton and I noticed a lot of homeless people lying around on the streets. I felt so bad for those poor people that didn’t have a place to live. They appreciate anything and everything they get. This really effects me and teaches me to be more grateful in life. And appreciate everything I have. In the play the 12 Angry Men, jurors 3, 5, and 11 prove that their experiences has affected who they are. I believe that juror 3’s family issues such as his problems with his son has affected him to become an aggressive man. Additionally, juror 5 has had a background of living in a slum all his life. Therefore, he tries to prove that not all people living in slums are criminals. Lastly, juror 11 struggles with others judging him because he is a European Refugee. This affected him by making him feel unconfident about himself and feels that the others jurors don't take his opinion too seriously.