12 Angry Men In The Movie : 12 Angry Men

Similarly ,In Twelve Angry Men Juror 8 is a smart and moral juror who is willing to stand against all the other jurors for what he thinks is right. He is the main protagonist who believes a boy accused with murdering his father deserves a discussion prior to a guilty verdict. Although all the other jurors initially voted guilty, juror 8 believed that the jurors should not “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”(Juror 8, 12). Throughout the play Juror 8 combats the pressure from the other Jurors to just vote guilty and manages to convince his fellow Jurors one by one that there in fact is “reasonable doubt”(Judge, 6) and convinces them to arrive at a “not guilty”(Juror 3, 72) verdict. Reginald Rose extols Juror 8’s pursuit of justice through his success. Not only did Juror 8 stand by his principles and have the courage to stand against all the other Jurors, he also had the wits to convince his fellow jurors to change their verdict. Through these actions Juror 8 brings justice to the courts of New York city saving the life of a young boy.

The movie 12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are on jury duty. The case is on the murder of an old man, and the man's son is the suspect. It starts off with 11 of the men voting that the boy is guilty and 1 voting that the boy is not guilty. Throughout the movie, the men go back and forth restating evidence and information that was giving in court, bringing up several different possibilities, and changing their votes. In the end the men all agree that the boy is not guilty and then go their separate ways. However, there are so many clues and evidence that the boy was the one who killed the old man, he is guilty.

Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’ is a play which displays the twelve individual jurors’ characteristics through the deliberation of a first degree murder case. Out of the twelve jurors, the 8th Juror shows an outstanding heroism exists in his individual bravery and truthfulness. At the start, the 8th Juror stands alone with his opposing view of the case to the other eleven jurors. Furthermore, he is depicted as a juror who definitely understands the jury system and defends it from the jurors who do not know it fully. At the end, he eventually successes to persuade the eleven other jurors and achieves a unanimous verdict, showing his

Juror 8 had many chances to change his opinion about the boy’s case, and yet he never did. Throughout this whole play, Juror 8 stood his ground and was

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.

Only one out of the twelve jurors originally displayed empathy toward a young man whose life was at trial. That one man, who identified himself as an architect, reveals his name as “Davis”, and acts as the protagonist in Twelve Angry Men. Standing as Juror Eight, he argued on the suspect’s behalf. Although, instead of defending the boy, he admitted to being unsure of a guilty vote and thought that his speculations deserved to be heard before the boy was put to death. As Juror Eight pressed to reveal holes in the case’s evidence, other jurors began to feel empathetic toward the suspect as well. Juror Five professes that he grew up in the slums and represents how character is not determined by where one is raised. In contrast, an ill old man proves to be bitter and declares a distrust of the boy from the very beginning. Juror Ten fails to empathize with the defendant even as a person, condemning him as “one of them” as one of his original arguments. This caused viewers to realize a prejudice that was common in the jury room. The bias denounces any empathy that the few stubborn, discriminatory men may have. Another juror to argue in favor of the prosecutors was Juror Three. This individual discloses his family situation and the bad blood between he and his son. His feelings toward his son seem to be projected onto the defendant as this man argues strongest and persistently for the boy’s sentencing. Juror Nine was the first to empathize with both Juror Eight and the defendant. He aided Davis in causing speculation among the others. Failing to empathize with the boy, many jurors disagree with Davis as he introduces conjecture in the beginning of the film.

In Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men there is a clear juror whom swayed the others and directly expressed his ideas. He is a “gentle man...who wants justice to be done.” Juror no.8 is the hero as his initial choice to vote not guilty locks in the boy's fate of escaping a life of prison and punishment; not excluding his persuasiveness and ideology of the morality of the other jurors. Juror no.8 single handedly voted against the grain and convinced other jurors of his logical reasons ‘it’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy of to die before talking about it first’. It was heroic of him to stand out against the others and the dramatic conclusion greatly attributed to his significant factor as the vote sway from 11-1 guilty to 12-0 for not guilty. Juror no.8 helped conveyed to the other jurors the boy's innocence. Persuading jurors in a chill mannerism whist jurors 3 and 10 were angry and impatient. Over the case juror no.8 was calm and reviewed the evidence taken from the prosecution and it's flaws. Juror no.8 constantly reviewed the evidence with other jurors presenting logical

Juror 8 shows us that he views life as being important, too much to just be taken away because of skin color or a rush to the ball game. He takes on the responsibility of assuming that it is in his position to protect the boy’s life before making any final assumptions. "There were eleven votes for guilty. It's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first." This act shows his desire to contemplate important decisions rather than make an impulsive choice without thinking.

The 3rd juror from the drama “Twelve Angry Men” is another character that play an important role in the drama. Throughout the drama he argues hi point that the boy is guilty. To him it's clear that the boy is guilty because in a democracy you must decide based on the evidence given. In the drama “Twelve Angry Men” page 103 paragraph 82 - 83 it states “ I really think this is one of those open and shut things.” The 3rd juror is sharing his opinion that he thinks the boy is guilty based on the evidence he heard. The 3rd juror treats the accused a if he was a adult because of the crime he committed. He believes that the accused should be trialed as an adult and he receive the full punishment. In the drama “Twelve Angry Men” page 102 paragraph 75 - 76 it states “ I mean, lets be reasonable. You sat in court and heard the same things we did. The man’s a dangerous killer. You could see it.” The 3rd juror is stating that in

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

In tough times, it is easy to forget what is right and wrong. The movie Twelve Angry Men is a very clear demonstration on right and wrong. The film is about twelve jurors who are deciding the fate of a young man accused of killing his father. These twelve men all vote for guilty, except for the eighth juror, who votes innocent. It seems very clear that the suspect is guilty, and the eighth juror goes against everyone to give the young man a fair chance. Although all other jurors try to pressure him into voting guilty, he sticks to his gut and eventually proves the suspect innocent. In the 1957 film 12 Angry Men, the eighth juror, Mr. Davis, sticks to his core values of honesty, fair judgement, and hard work to prove the young man accused of killing his father to be innocent.

The play 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose takes place in 1957, where a trial about a boy stabbing his father is charged with first degree charges, facing execution. 12 jurors, all with different personalities and backgrounds are settled to discuss the future of the boy; declaring not guilty will release him from his charges and vice versa. However, evidence alone wasn’t the only pieces that could convince other jurors. And though it seems mandatory that the jurors would argue and debate among each other, biases about the boy were the main attention, focusing more so on that rather than evidence. Juror 10 becomes the best example of having biases and grudges towards the boy, as he continues throughout the movie to get others to realize what he’s trying to claim, playing a vital role and although juror 10’s motives doesn’t change, he acts as 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.

In the 12 angry men by Reginald Rose all the jurors have their own points of view on the trial. However, two jurors have perspectives that are similar on the surface but in fact feature many differences when analyzed in depth. They are juror #8 and #10. In particular, these differences and similarities are depicted through their methods in proving the boy guilty of murder. Their differences and similarities show how the idea of justice may vary from one individual to another.

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.