12 Angry Men Analysis

In the movie 12 Angry Men, the jurors are set in a hot jury room while they are trying to determine the verdict of a young man who is accused of committing a murder. The jurors all explain why they think the accused is guilty or not guilty. Throughout the movie they are debating back and forth and the reader begins to realize that even though the jurors should try to not let bias cloud their judgement, the majority of the jurors are blinded by bias. The viewer can also see that the jurors have their own distinguishable personalities. Their personalities intertwine with each other to demonstrate how the jury system is flawed, but that is what makes it work.

The play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose demonstrates how biases can affect jury duty. A bias is a prejudice in favor of a particular group, person, or thing resulting in unfairness. This play gives readers an example of how biases influence the thoughts of many. Each juror is biased in their own way, whether it is race, age, or gender. These bias’ prevent people from seeing the truth to a side of a story. The twelve jurors must determine the fate of the eighteen year old boy without leading their biases in different interpretations of the evidence. Biased stereotypes tend to combine with the tendency to repent information proving evidence. More times than not the ones who are biased do not realize it. They proceed to input their conscience

The film “12 Angry Men” gives the audience insight as to how jury deliberations work. The film follows 12 jurors throughout the process of finding the defendant’s sentencing. The jury is overseeing a case surrounding a young boy who is charged with the murder of his father. It was interesting to see the process of this paired with the way each character’s vote had an effect on each of the other juror’s decisions. The film “12 Angry Men” portrays a realistic fluctuation of stances in a room of jurors as a whole and individually based upon the prior experiences and ethics of each juror.

During the New York summer of 1957 the play Twelve Angry Men is set in a small humid jury room. The playwright Reginald Rose through this play questions the reliability of current jury system. The jurors are instructed by the judge “to deliberate honestly ant thoughtfully”, as a result some take this instruction more seriously than others. A number of the jurors are able to take a logical stance, whilst other becomes emotionally involved in the issue. Uncertainty plays a vital role in creating doubt in the jurors minds. The contrasting perspectives of Juror 3 and Juror 8 make this very clear. Demonstrating quite evidently that despite the minority most are able to deliberate genuinely and with close considerations to the details of the trial.

Reginald Rose’s play ‘12 Angry Men’ entirely takes place in a small New York City jury room where 12 male jurors have convened to decide the verdict in a homicide case. The verdict of this case will decide if a young boy will be charged with murdering his father, with a switchblade knife, on the first degree. The film shows us nothing of the trial itself except for the judge 's perfunctory, almost bored, charge to the jury where he reminds them that they must base their unanimous decision of “guilty” or “not guilty” on whether or not there is “reasonable doubt” in their minds as to the guilt of the accused. His tone of voice indicates the verdict is a foregone conclusion. We hear neither prosecutor nor defense attorney, and learn of the

The movie "12 Angry Men" focuses on a jury's decision on a capital murder case. A 12-man jury is sent to begin decisions on the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old Latino accused of stabbing his father to death, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. The case appears to be open-and-shut: The defendant has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have lost is found at the murder scene; and several witnesses either heard screaming, saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene. Eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty; only Juror No. 8 (Mr. Davis) casts a not guilty vote. At first Mr. Davis' bases his vote more so for the sake of discussion after all, the jurors must believe beyond a

The 1957 film 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, tells the story of a jury made up of twelve men, as they contemplate the sentencing of a young man accused of murder. As the name implies, many of the jurors become extremely emotional as the deliberation process moves on. The jurors’ emotions and unique personalities create various conflicts and show how they each have differing perspectives on the trial. Throughout the deliberation process it becomes clear that several of the jurors harbor personal prejudices which end up affecting their decisions in reaching a verdict. It is clear from the beginning that if not for one juror, known as Juror 8, the jury would have returned a unanimous guilty verdict with no deliberation.

Unlike the defendant in the short story “A Jury of Her Peers”, the young boy did not have a jury of his peers. In the short story, the defendant had women equal to her and on her side doing things in their best hopes to save their peer. But in the film “12 Angry Men” it was the opposite, a younger man with his life in the hands of much older “angrier” men. But regardless of the jury not being his peers, they still were able to remove social conditions and other inequality beliefs off the table to give a fair decision.

Reginald Rose’s play, Twelve Angry Men, examines not only character but America’s judicial system as well. It is a jury’s responsibility to find the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt; if there is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, it is the jury’s duty to find the defendant not guilty. However, not all doubt can be eliminated. The motif of doubt is introduced by the Eighth Juror. The Eighth Juror establishes doubt in his peers through the symbolism in the switchblade knife he obtained.

John is disgusted when he sees the identical groups of workers and has to leave the room to throw up. The new world with its new people is not what John first imagined, and he does not appreciate everything like he thought he would. Instead of being as excited as he was in the beginning, he is disappointed with this society. These identical, deformed people are just another disappointment.

8 begins his explanation of why he thinks the way he does by telling of the defendant's childhood, in which he frequented foster homes and was the known victim of abuse. All this, while his father was serving time in jail for forgery. Juror 8 is appealing to the others human compassion side in describing the child's rough childhood and upbringing. He pleads to the other jurors to simply give the boy a chance, for the first time in his life. This attempt at touching the others has gotten 3 to get out of his seat and move closer to 8 holding a picture. 3 continues talk of his son and his raising of him and how their relationship has been affected. The manner with which the man is speaking and his facial expressions make it painfully obvious that he has some great sadness when speaking of his son and even says that he has not heard from him in two years. Juror 10 is quick to point out that "we" do not owe him a thing. He was in fact lucky to get a trial with lawyer that was paid for by the city. 4 jumps in to elaborate on the idea that

Have you ever been accused of something that you didn’t do?  Or even have others gang up on you because of your opinion on something.  There are so many people in the world who want justice and will do anything to get it.  This movie took place in New York city in a court a house.  The story is told in third person limited.  The judge will have to decide if a young puerto rican boy who is 18 years old, is guilty or innocent of murdering his father. First it begins as an open and shut case of a murder.  Although it soon becomes a detective story, a bunch of clues start to appear creating doubt about the case.  At first 11 of the 12 jurors are quick to vote that he is guilty.  The remaining juror seems skeptical about the evidence and facts.  Later on in the movie, more jurors started to vote not guilty.  All the jurors went over the evidence but a lot of it didn’t make sense. So as they kept investigating, more clues and assumptions began to appear.  Then when they took a couple more votes, it eventually came down to twelve not guilty and one guilty.  After the one juror started to get mad and didn’t have enough evidence to prove the boy guilty, he had no choice but to vote not guilty. This then makes the vote twelve not guilty, meaning the boy won’t be executed.

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.

The right to a trial by jury is a core element of the United States Criminal Justice System. This right is guaranteed to all citizens by the highest law of the land: The United States Constitution. But are juries truly an effective means of securing justice? The movie 12 Angry Men provides commentary on this question with its portrayal of twelve jurors deliberating over a murder case. The jury initially seems bound to condemn the defendant, a young man of nineteen years, to the electric chair, but a single man, Juror no. 8 descents against the majority. Over the course of the film, tensions rise, and after much debate Juror no. 8 manages to convince the other eleven jurors to eventually vote not guilty. Through their debates and casual side conversations, we are shown the role of personal biases and group manipulation tactics that can impede with objective analysis and ultimately the attainment of justice. Thus, the Movie 12 Angry Men mostly serves to challenge the jury system as a means of securing justice by demonstrating the harmful effects of personal biases, the lack of dedication to the system, and the potential for manipulative tactics.