12 Angry Men Act 10 Analysis

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.

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

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

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,

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.

In the movie, Twelve Angry Men, all of the characters have their own specific personalities. Jurors 1 through 12 all have gone through different life situations and come from different beginnings. On a certain level, the jurors are all connected to each other in one way or another. That would be the strength of the justice system. It brings people together that no one would have ever thought were compatible to work with each other.

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

Juror Number Ten is falsely accusing the Kid’s ethnic group of all being bad people and his perspective is blinded by stereotypes. Juror Ten’s childhood experiences, have clouded his point of view and caused him to believe that the Kid does not deserve a fair trial. This is because Juror Ten may have witnessed

Reginald Rose’s exceptional talent in playwriting is shown in his latest drama Twelve Angry Men. Rose captured and captivated the general public with the amount of prejudice shown from the characters, and it shows that prejudice opposed to race isn’t the only prejudice there is, and in this play, this is explained and experienced with. Numerous characters in this production are capable of prejudice towards this youth accused of murder of his father and also prejudice is made from jurors to other jurors. For instance, juror 10, a “scrooge” and he is one of the main antagonists along with juror 3 and juror 7. Juror 10; his name is not known but the play reveals that his personality is quite bitter and he “values on any human life to save his own” and he is, of course, a

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.

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.

Idealized Influence – defined by the values, morals, and ethical principles of a leader and is manifest through behaviours that supress self interest and focus on the good of the collective.

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.

Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, is a play about a jury trying to come to a verdict that will determine whether or not a teenage boy will be put on death row.

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.