12 Angry Men Inside Come Out

Juror 3‘s relationship with his estranged son conflicts with the case and how he is intolerant to young kids (ageism) he also believes that a common way of handling conflict in his family has always been with physical

Well Juror #3 talked about his own son that we see the true reason for his bias against the boy. During the trial, Juror 3 talks about how he once saw his own son run away from a fight. I remember him saying " I told him (his son) right out," I'm going bust you up into little pieces for trying." When his son was 15 he him on the face. Which clears how that this guy has huge problems with kids not respecting their father. In my understanding each Juror brings their own life problems into that jury room. We can't control our emotions, we all are human and it's normal to express feelings. One juror was hurting badly leading him to act that way. He misses his son and is very disappointed in his son for such high disrespect towards his father.

Eventually, the audience and jurors do not know if the boy truly committed the murder or not (only ‘reasonable doubt’ was established, based on the testimonial evidence presented); the boy’s true innocence or guilt had no bearing on the jury’s final agreement; the agreement was derived by systemically questioning and addressing the assumptions and motivations (interests) backing the jurors’ decisions. While all twelve jurors essentially desired justice to be served (according to their personal definitions and interpretations) in the case, which is all parties’ fundamental interest, Juror 8 adopted a different position from the other jurors, due to his compassion and desire to see the teenager get a fairly-deliberated verdict. Juror 3 opted for “guilty”, making the mistake of attempting to solve the wrong problem by having a

Inside a room where life or death decisions are made, twelve men sit with wandering thoughts. The made up minds of some jurors are to send a boy to his death without a second thought, but one other juror may change that. Inside of the play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose, Juror 8 has the persuasive evidence to change the minds of his fellow Jurors and save a boy from his execution. The other Juror’s seem like they won’t budge with their mind set on the decision of guilty, but after Juror 8 proves his thoughts on the decision of innocent, he may just be able to save a young life.

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 this novel, twelve jurors are designated to choose the verdict of a case. A sixteen-year-old boy is accused of murdering his father. If the jurors’ verdict is guilty, then the boy will receive a death sentence. The chosen jurors are locked in a room to decide the verdict, guilty or innocent. At the beginning, only one juror chose to vote not guilty, for the sake of reasonable doubt. The juror made thought out points and persuasively changed all other other jurors minds. By the end, all jurors chose to vote not guilty, except one. This particular juror voted guilty because he compared the defendant to his own son, whom he had problems with. This prejudice blocked his mind, making him confuse facts with his own judgment.

After the twelve jurors had taken their initial vote, Juror Eight found himself to be a pariah among his associates, for simply possessing an opinion contradictory to the other 11 men in the room; breaking the pattern of unanimous voting, and declaring that he felt the accused might not be guilty. After the other jurors took turns verbally expressing their dissatisfaction with his audacious contradiction to the majority opinion, Juror Eight calmly responded: “It’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first” (Fonda). Here lies the fundamental characteristic that renders Juror Eight a leader among his peers: his desire to consider the situation at hand to a deeper extent than what the other jurors felt was necessary. This inherent drive to face the true perplexity of the situation and submerge his consciousness under the pressure that upheld a human life ultimately led Juror Eight to shed light upon the holes in the evidence, and find an opinion worthy of acting upon. By deeply evaluating the witness’s’ testimonies, and considering the consequences of his decision, Juror Eight considered the situation before him deep within the dimensions of empathy and skepticism. The minds that can embark on such voyages through labyrinthine speculation

Oftentimes in life, people are faced with situations in which they must work together as a group, with the intention of solving a particular problem. This is seen throughout “Twelve Angry Men” as the jurors collaborate, in an attempt to find a verdict for the murder case. Even though these people have never met each other before, it’s necessary for them to cope with one another and their thoughts, so that they can come to an agreement. In order to come to a conclusion, the jurors had to grow as a group through the five stages of development.

In the 1957 MGM film, Twelve Angry Men, a young boy from the slum is on trial for allegedly stabbing his father to death. The jury from New York City is forced to have 12 men agree as to whether the boy is guilty or not guilty. If they decide not guilty, the boy is set free; if he is found guilty, the boy will receive the death sentence. In the beginning all but one agreed the boy was guilty; Juror 8, Mr. Davis, argues that the boy deserves some deliberation. Mr. Davis changed the other eleven jurors’ minds by using his core values such as keeping an open-mind, staying humble, and believing every life is valuable.

The main way that juror eight convinces the rest of the jury of the boys innocence is by bring up the ethics of the other jurors. The reason the juror does not convict the boy when they first vote is because the man believes that the boy’s life at least deserves to be discussed before he is sentenced. Most of the jury has other things that they would rather be doing instead of being in the hot jury room, for example one of the jurors has a ticket for a play that he will not make because of the deliberation. Another juror made his decision of the boy being guilty based off of the part of the city the boy was from, and not based on the evidence provided in the case. Juror eight reminds the rest of the jury that the boy is innocent until proven guilty; therefore, the defense does not have to prove the boy’s innocence,

Twelve Angry Men is a very interesting film. As the evidence is brought up to question by the jurors themselves. The complexity of this case grew as the films went on. Then came the hard part, making the decision, guilty or not guilty. Especially when you have jurors that are over shadowed by prejudice that influence their decision. It is only when prejudice is set aside that the jurors’ are able to make a more logical decision on the case. As the movie continues, all twelve jurors slowly arrive in the room. They take a seat according to their jury numbers and begin to discuss the case. The foreman then reviews the case. You learn that the man is accused of killing his father and all jurors must vote guilty or not guilty for there to

He agreed with the “slum kid” statement, but focused upon the idea that the adolescents of today don’t possess any respect, value, or morality for their elders. Therefore, this all shows how the initial attributions of each character, along with their own stereotypes and norms, affected the end behaviors and actions of each juror and whether they thought the teenager was guilty or

Because of his experiences with his own son, he learned to hate the defendant and made him a direct reflection of his own son. Juror #3 believed that one bad apple made the rest rotten as well. He built such anger and intolerance for his own son that he carried the same pre-conceived feelings and opinions as soon as he entered the courtroom. Juror #3 was the hardest to convince as he was the most irate and easily agitated of all twelve jurors. Faced with eleven others that were certain of the defendant’s innocence, he proceeded to stand his ground and disputed every single fact thrown his way, regardless if his argument made sense or not. In the end, after he saw the picture of him and his son, he realized that his enemy was not the defendant but his own son. Juror #3 recognized that his vendetta was for a cause driven towards the wrong person. After battling with his moral and ethical dilemma, he swallowed his pride and eventually voted not guilty.

Plot: “Twelve Angry Men” is an interesting and exciting jury-room confrontation in which an "open and shut case" becomes strenuous as twelve strangers scuffle for answers. The trial involves a nineteen-year-old boy, who is suspect of killing his father in a late-night altercation with an extraordinary knife. His fate now lies in the hands of 12 jurors, each with his own determination to solve the case and reveal the truth. As the session takes its course, evidence becomes scrutinised, tempers rise, and the jury room erupts in a shouting brawl because one such juror finds reasonable doubts in the two testimonies that were deemed credible enough to convict. In his fight for an acquittal, the singled out juror found that the

Reginald Rose’s play Twelve Angry Men brings together a group of 12 Jurors in deciding the verdict of the supposedly 18-year-old killer. As the play moves forward, Juror 8 brings up a lot of good points in explaining why the boy is not guilty. When the other Juror begins to side with Juror 8, Juror 4 stands hold on his opinion and provided some solid facts in why the boy is guilty. As the play progresses, Juror 4 has proved himself to be a calm, independent, and an intelligent thinker.