12 Angry Men Core Values

During the time Reginald Rose wrote the play Twelve Angry Men America was not an equal place for all people. A democracy is founded on the ideology that all Americans should be given a fair trial in court before being declared guilty. The twelve jurors in the play come from various backgrounds but initially, all but one vote in favor of the boy’s unforgivable sentence; while two other jurors lift two strong social stigmas and overcome their bias. One juror decided to stand up and take the time out for proper reasoning that resulted in teaching the others two jurors a lesson. Final verdicts should be made on justifiable grounds or the foundation of America’s society could be left at risk for collapse. Justifiable final verdicts are skewed

12 Angry Men is a film about the dispute among the members of a jury on whether they should convict a teenager of allegedly killing his own father. The jury argues over and over, creating a very tense environment; whilst continuously switching positions on the issue. At the end of the movie, the jury agrees that the boy is not guilty, due to various doubts. However, only one person remained believing he is guilty all throughout the case. At the end of the movie we find out why this person had such a strong belief that the boy was guilty, it was because the person had a bad relationship with his own son and that influenced his beliefs on the case.

Twelve Angry Men was written over half of a century ago but still baits thought as to one’s true character. Screening the process of twelve jurors determining a young boys fate in a murder trial, the picture dissects individuals and begins to uproot prejudice and biases a few of the jurors were at first uncomfortable to admit. The 1957 MGM film Twelve Angry Men provokes thought through twelve on-screen characters by displaying their skills in empathy, personal priorities, and self-control.

The film “Twelve Angry Men” directed by Sidney Lumet illustrates many social psychological principles. The tense, gripping storyline that takes place in the 1950s features a group of jurors who must decide unanimously whether a young man is guilty or innocent in the murder of his father. At the beginning, eleven of the twelve jurors voted guilty. Gradually, through some heated discussion, the jurors are swayed to a not-guilty verdict. Upon examination, the film highlights social psychology theories in areas of conformity and group influence.

Henry Fonda, plays the role of juror number eight, who from the beginning keeps his conviction that the defendant is not guilty due to reasonable doubt. Fonda uses arguments and reasoning to convince the other jurors to deliver a not-guilty verdict. For each witness testimony, Fonda was able to raise doubt, like the L-train causing enough noise that the elderly neighbor would be unable to hear the father and son argue. As more jurors, changed their verdict to not-guilty, they took on the role as persuader, for example, juror number nine placed doubt on the female neighbor to be able to see the murder because of it was doubtful she was wearing her glasses. One by one, Fonda was able to convince the others to admit there was reasonable doubt.

The classic 1957 movie 12 Angry Men delves in to a panel of twelve jurors who are deciding the life or death fate of an eighteen year old italian boy accused of stabbing his father to death. The twelve men selected as jurors are a diverse group, each coming to the table with their own socioeconomic backgrounds, personal experiences, prejudice’s, and all of this plays a role in the jurors attitudes and/or misconceptions of the accused young man. How each of the jurors, all but Juror Eight played by Henry Fonda, experiences and personalities impact their original vote of guilty is clear at the beginning of the movie with the first vote. However, from the start, Juror Eight displays confidence, and demonstrates leadership abilities utilizing

What drove juror nine and eight judgement’s of other is not to judge a person solely by their pass actions or where they come from, but with their current character. Juror eight was able change the other juror’s vote to not guilty. Juror nine made sure that vote was based off of stereotypes.The play “Twelve Angry Men” holds relevance for today, because there are negative stereotypes that can impact people's lives and result in not being judged fairly.

The movie 12 Angry Men takes place in a room of 12 jurors as they discuss the guilt of a boy charged with the murder of his father. The facts of the case have been laid out, and each juror already has decided how they feel. Initially the vote was 11-1 guilty. The one vote for not guilty came from Juror Number Eight, Mr. Davis, played by Henry Fonda. Mr. Davis voted not guilty because he had reasonable doubt about evidence presented by the prosecution. As Mr. Davis explains his reasoning behind his reasonable doubt, the core values of himself and other jurors are displayed. As the movie continues, the vote slowly turns from 11-1 guilty to 12-0 not guilty. Mr. Davis brings up point after point that force his fellow jurors to analyze themselves and in the end, change the way they vote. Ultimately, the 1957 film 12 Angry Men forces the audience to look inward after watching the juror’s words, manners, and priorities change throughout the jury session.

Throughout the play, justice is most shown when deciding the outcome of this defendant. Juror Eleven explains how personal experiences should not bias one’s decision. Juror Eight has always displayed fairness throughout the case, especially when explaining how one’s motives should not influence the other’s decision. Lastly, Juror Ten explains how facts are more important when decided the defendant’s fate, and feelings should be kept silent. In the conclusion of 12 Angry Men, the author demonstrates how fairness will be chosen over pity or hatred when determining the offender’s

In the play 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose there are many fallacies that shape the deliberations of the case. One of the most important elements of the play is the relationship between Juror 3, Juror 8 and Juror 10 at times. The constant conflict between the jurors is the main drive of the drama. Juror 10 was bitter and prejudice right from the start, it was not until Act III when he unleashes his bigotry. Juror 3 was always the antagonist from the beginning, he is quick to lose his temper with number 8 and the rest of the jury at times.

The 1957 movie version of 12 Angry Men, brings twelve people together with different personalities and experiences to discuss the fate of a young boy that allegedly killed his father. At the very beginning, many agree that the boy is guilty except for one man. Juror #8 votes not guilty and pushes to have the evidence talked through. After reviewing all the evidence carefully, the tables turned from guilty to not guilty. Each juror brought different experiences and personalities to the jury room. The two that were forceful with their opinions and their reasonings to decide either way we're jurors #8 and #3.

Unlike the positive self-image that Mr. Davis displays, the majority of the jurors and audience continually question themselves as the deliberation progresses. Lument wants his audience to feel uncomfortable so he 1) makes the day hot 2) the jury room even hotter 3) The fan in the room not working. He accredits the “ lens plot” that was utilized in the juror room scenes to make the room seem smaller as the story continues (RE). This technique adds to the intensity of the situation, causing the sp0ectators to feelo claustrophobic and increasingly agitated. Then their self-examinations begin. Do they see themselves on teams, inquiring, whose side are you on anyway? Do they just want to be done, no matter the consequences, so they can go home or to a ball game? Do they want to be the executioner because of the anger they feel for another young man? Do they want the others to follow them unquestionably because they are important? Or perhaps, they want to piece together the evidence so they can account for what actually happened when the murder was committed. This movie moves the audience to feel obligated to ask themselves, as the jurors asked each other, just what kind of man are you?

In the film, juror number eight had to examine every single aspect of the case (the knife used to kill the father, the train passing by, the witnesses, the witness’s complexion, etc.) in order to formulate his opinion without a doubt, so that no contributing factors had obscured the truth. In the light of critical

Twelve Angry Men is a courtroom drama that was brought to the big screens in 1957. The storyline follows twelve men selected for jury duty, who are trying to reach a verdict on a young man’s trial following the murder of his father. Throughout the debates and voting, the men all reveal their personalities and motives behind their opinions. Because of all the differences of the men, their communication skills lack in some ways and are excellent in others. The three small group communication variables that I found portrayed throughout the movie were prejudice, past experience and preoccupation.

In 12 Angry Men, jurors determined if a young, poor Puerto Rican man murdered his father. Initially, eleven of the men determined that the defendant was guilty of murder; however, one juror held that the defendant was innocent, and he believed the man deserved a chance at being proven innocent. After intense debate, the jury found the defendant not guilty. Even though this movie shows evidence of prejudice, groupthink, conformity, cognitive heuristics, the catalyst of change and minority influence benefitted the jury in making a unanimous, educated decision about the fate of the young man.