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.

People's bias and predispositions can affect their opinion of different circumstances and different people. This is very evident throughout the play. After the first group vote and juror 8 votes not guilty, a discussion ensues. It is there that

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.

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

The jurors are transformed by the process of deliberating. Eleven men voted guilty because of their prejudices, fears, laziness and insecurities, but they are eventually persuaded by reason to give up these limiting beliefs, to see the potential in the facts, and to find justice. The critical turning points in the jury votes occur, not when there is passion and anger, but when there is reasoned discussion, as the rational Juror 8 triumphs over the prejudices of his fellow jurors. The facts of the case do not change, but the jurors come to see the facts differently, and change by the process they go through. Despite the hostility and tension created in this process, the twelve men end up reconciled, and justice is done.

Juror Eight seems to be the opposite, feeling sympathetic for the boy because of his poor upbringing. He demands to overview the case evidence given by the old man and the old woman, seeing as there is plausible doubt in the details. He refuses to let Juror Three’s accusations of him and the defendant upset him instead he proceeds to convince the remaining jurors that the boy is not guilty. The race of the characters are never announced because the play is supposed to be interpreted in any way the reader wants to see it. Juror Eight is clearly more intelligent than Juror Three considering Three sticks to his prejudices and does not allow the other jurors to sway his mind. After defending his side throughout the duration of the play, Jurors Four and Three begin to feel pressured. They end up giving in to the other jurors at towards the end of the play as they communicatively persuade a stubborn

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.

From there the viewers see that the 12 Jurors retire to a private room where they briefly become acquainted before the deliberation begins. It is clear to the viewers that even before deliberation begins that there are clear biases among the Jurors. The Jurors number off and give their verdicts, and almost right off the bat all the Jurors, aside from one (Juror #8), vote guilty – and they also make it clear that they plan to deliver said verdict without forethought, on Henry Fonda (Juror #8) is the opposing vote of not guilty. His vote of not guilty

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.

Twelve Angry Men The play �Twelve Angry Men�, By Reginald Rose, is a play about 12 jurors that in an uncomfortable room have to discuss a life and death case about a boy that is accused or killing his father. the jurors do not really know eachother to talk to and wish they were anywhere but in that jury room. Every juror has a different emotional pattern that makes the play interesting. In my opinion there were 3 main jurors

Several pairs of eyes trail the prosecutor as he puts forth his reasons as to why the defendant should be guilty. Several pairs of ears listen intently in a trance like mode, also cautious of every detail. The prosecutor presents the facts with great gusto, painting a picture of the defendant in a bad light. Once he is done, the defendant’s lawyer takes the stage and he too, with great effort, puts forth reasons as to why his client is innocent. In the end, when everything is said and done and it time for the verdict, only one voice answers to the court clerk out of the 12 men and women. These 12 people are the jurymen and they play an equally important role as the lawyers and judges of a court trial. In fact, a jury is the sole decider, based

Within the context of the United States, the purpose of juror selection is quite clear-- assemble a collection of six or twelve individuals who have, to some extent, proven themselves capable of arriving at a fair and unbiased verdict based upon the evidence presented. It is the expectation of the courts, and indeed of the general public, that this standard will be met most of the time, for there is a belief that without this cornerstone of the American justice system, the whole structure could collapse. That established, what does the assembly of such a group entail? Further, if this assembly process is recognized as a ritual rather than as a “technological routine” by whom and what should the ritual’s success be determined? It has become clear to me that although there may be strong consensus on the purpose of jury selection, it’s execution, and the judgment of its outcomes looks vastly different depending on the perspective from which it is viewed. This can be observed in the different ways actors speak and perform in relation to one another, both within the ritual space and in retrospection. The way in which these differences present themselves in the language and performances of different actors within the courtroom space has considerable implications for the outsider’s evaluation of the process’ efficacy as ritual.

The first juror was the foreman. He was the task leader of the group, taking initiative to sit the people down, numbering them, and telling the jurors when they could go on breaks. This juror goes over the process and rules the men will be using, and sets up the first voting. He also tries to keep the jurors on task and organized. Juror 2 is anxious man. This juror was easily persuaded to change his opinion about the case and tended to have the same opinion of the person who spoke before him. He played the role of a tension releaser which was seen when he offered the men cough drops in tense situations. Juror 3 is temperamental, opinionated, strong, loud, biased, stubborn and intolerable man. This man does not want to hear the opinions of the other jurors and is sure that the boy is guilty. He plays the part of the central negative in the group. When he doesn’t like what other people are saying he begins to yell and challenges that person speaking. He began to be dominating and blocking towards the end. Even though he did not have a statement to backup his vote, he stood alone just because he didn’t want to be proved wrong. His own problems with his son abandoning him also

The character of Davis, played by Henry Fonda, used persuasion to help convince the other jurors of why the defendant was not guilty. He was able to read the other jurors, and actively listened to what was being said. He was able to establish credibility by maintaining his composure, he gave a positive impression of himself to the others, and establish his trustworthiness. He would

This result is mainly because of the manipulation which is made by Wolfe and Pennington. They set the evidence so that jurors were easier to construct a story prone to the prosecution. This is the influence of story model prediction in jury system. It seems that because of story constructions, bias could be brought into jury with the order of evidence, which always manipulated by attorneys. Etc. For example, they utilize story condition in presentation—opening and closing statements. Furthermore, story model contains complex conditions, not only some pieces of evidence, also there are some extralegal information and emotional feelings from jurors. (Prenticet&Koehlertt,2003) This means that besides statement and presentations, questionnaires are also asked when jurors thinking about cases. Questions related to negative emotion feelings usually includes during a jury. Similarly, Bright& Goodman-Delahunty has repeatedly indicated that emotional reactions of jurors are related to the jury. (Bright&Goodman-Delahunty,2011) In this way, well-established constructions from jurors could work and with these questions, they may finally understand the case from their mind and verdict decisions.