12 Angry Men

After completing your movie analysis, you will reflect on the analysis process and how you have learned to more thoroughly analyze film as well as how rigorous study of film enhances your development as a student and thinker. In this 300- to 600-word reflection, review your initial post from the “Post Your Introduction” discussion in Week One, and consider how your ability to analyze movies has changed or grown. Append your reflection to the analysis portion of your paper. Your reflection should be personal and exploratory in

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.

Juror 3 was basing his failed relationship with his son on the accused boy. The reason that he had such a bad relationship with his son is because when the boy was young, he ran away from a fight and Juror 3 said: “I’m going to make a man out of you or I’m going to bust you up into little pieces trying”. Later on, when his son was older, they got into a fight and Juror 3 hasn’t seen him since. This experience probably left him the impression that all kids take their loved ones for granted, and that they deserve severe punishments. Juror 3 is not the type to provide the sharpest evidence or information, but he is very determined to prove that the accused really did murder the victim. Juror 8 practically gives nothing away about his real life, probably because he did not want to add his own prejudices to the case. Juror 3 gave both his ill-mannered personality and bigotry away in the play.

Angry! Hostile!” This causes him to not listen to the other jurors opinions and block out any idea of the defendant being innocent. His prejudice is further understood when he says “this kid is guilty. He’s got to burn. We’re letting him slip through our fingers here.” Juror #3 is only able to see the young boy on trial as a symbol of his own son and is therefore unable to look past his own anger towards his son and see the case for what it really is. It is only through the help of juror #8 does juror #3 finally let go of his personal prejudice and sees the truth about the case and changes his vote to not guilty.

It is the juror's responsibility to prove the boy guilty or not. Many of these jurors applied their biases to the way the boy grew up and was treated throughout his life. They have created false accusations that are not necessarily accurate. They argue that teenagers his age have no sense of morality or respect for their elders. Which could be a justifiable reasoning for the murder of his own father. Juror Three appears to be prejudiced towards the boy due to the fact that his own son resented him and moved out. It is not uncommon to develop an explicit bias after generalizing impressions from a personal experience and applying that to all groups of that kind such as age, religion, etc. As Juror Eight votes not guilty during a vote, the third juror becomes infuriated and disagrees while ranting about how the defendant is completely guilty due to evidence. Two different categories came into play as Juror Three expressed his feelings about his own son relating to the boy on

With a very short temper to go along with his all-powerful attitude, juror three is not a nice person. Already he has threatened death towards one of the other jurors and would have made good the threat had it not been for the decisive actions of the other jurors who jumped up to hold him back.. An acrimonious and blind-sighted executioner, juror #3 is one of many that an innocent victim would not want to decide their fate. Unfortunately, democracy does not only apply to the fair and just, and undoubtedly innocent men and women have fallen prey to the unwavering wrath of men

Juror number three is an arrogant, self-minded and extremely ambiguous has had a personal experience in his life, that’s why he wants the boy dead. His son ran away from a fight when he was nine. “ I saw him. I was so ashamed I almost threw up.” Then when he was older the boy then hit him in the face and he has never seen him since. This puts a pre- judged view inside of his head. In the end he thinks to himself that it is not his son that is on trial therefore he can not treat him like that. He can’t hate all teenagers because of his son. Juror number ten is similar to number three in

‘Twelve angry men’ shows that personal experience is the strongest factor influencing human decision-making processes.’ Discuss

Including from their own lives each juror has gone through a point in time were even they were stereotyped by the world. The jury has been convinced that the boy has been severely stereotyped through the whole case and court. The 3rd juror let the case come into his own life and he made his own opinion on the boy without even paying attention to detail, he reflected his own life in his argument with stereotypes (72). The lives of the jurors have all been affected by the acts of stereotyping and see the effects of it that can have on someone. A boy that at the beginning almost lost his life due to the people just looking at him was saved by the fact that the jury looked past all that.

12 Angry Men is a captivating courtroom drama in which the life of an eighteen-year-old boy, on trial for murder, is put into the hands of 12 jurors, each with their own personal views. However, despite this difference in views, all of these men are persuaded by the use of appeals, such as logos and ethos showed through witnesses and evidence. However, the accuracy of these will soon be brought into question as well, in an attempt to sway the juror's votes. And, although both sides of the argument used these appeals, the manner in which there were used ultimately determined this case, in a variety of ways. Appeals play a large role in the persuasion of the men throughout this film, in a variety of ways, this is especially shown at the

The film uses juror three to demonstrate how past experiences can influence ones prejudice in decision making. Juror 3, who has a prejudice against the accused, and thinks the kid is under-privileged and doesn’t deserve a second chance, which is reason enough for him to conclude the accused is guilty. As the discussion continues as to the verdict of the trial, juror three grows frustrated and angrily refutes, “What is this? Love your under- privileged bother week or something? (12 Angry Men). Due to his past experiences with young men, he is ready to sentence the defendant to death with weak circumstantial evidence, grows angry as the other jurors question what he refers to as “facts” and claims “You can’t refute facts” (12 Angry Men) As all the Jurors except juror twelve get more and more frustrated by the slowed process, juror three begins to see through his prejudice, and disperses the other jurors interruptions by saying “Be quiet, we’ll all get a turn”(12 Angry Men). It finally becomes clear, he sees similarities with his son he had a falling out with several years ago, and puts this prejudice aside and excepts that the evidence is too circumstantial to convict a kid for murder, and sentence him to death.

The rest of the jury realized the boy’s race was not a fact of the matter. The condition the boy was raised was not completely certain but as the jury even walked through every witness’s perspective; they were attempting to be as realistic as possible. The 10th juror was a racist but his perspective was useful nonetheless by teaching a lesson. This responsible approach resulted from an impartial jury with different perspectives and in law reviews such as, “Diversity and the Civil Jury”; it is made clear just how legal and important impartial juries can be. “The right to an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community has mostly been expounded upon in the context of the Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial in criminal cases, but has been applied to civil cases as well.’ In order to ensure that juries serve “as instruments of public justice,” this requirement is designed to create “a body truly representative of the community” (Carbone 840). America is very diverse so it makes sense that a jury should reflect such a mixed society and leave racism at the door.

The classic movie 12 Angry Men opens with clips of a courthouse, ultimately panning to a specific court room where an 18-year-old boy is on trial for killing his father. Despite the case being the central point which the story revolves around, the movie isn’t about the boy or even his father. The movie is about the 12 jurors who are in charge of the boy’s fate. If they decide he is guilty, he is sentenced to the death penalty, which meant death by the electric chair.

In this movie, there are many examples of social psychology topics. Discrimination, aggression, attitude change, and friendship are among some of the most important. When the guys walk in the first saloon, they are instantly discriminated against because of

The main issue that the movie raises is the idea that being subjected to peer pressure and malicious parenting