12 Angry Men Themes

Twelve Angry Men highlights the importance of seeing things from more than one perspective. Discuss.

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.

To add, Juror Eight came up with possible scenarios that may have happened at the murder scene. He also put himself in the shoes of the witnesses to help the other jurors understand what may have really happened. By doing so he helped to uncover the truth about the murder through his relentless effort to prove that he was right about his claim that the boy was innocent. In Act II page 39 Juror Eight goes over the old man’s testimony just to see if everyone is on the same page, “ ...he says he got up, went out into the hall, down the hall to the front door and opened it and looked out just in time to see the boy racing down the stairs...fifteen seconds after he heard the body fall...do you mind if I try it...according to you, it’ll only take fifteen seconds.” Juror eight then continues to act the old man’s testimony out on page 41 of Act II the stage directions state, “ EIGHT begins to get up. Slowly, he swings his legs over edges of chairs, reaches for imaginary canes and struggles to his feet… EIGHT walks as a crippled old man would walk now. He goes toward chair which is serving as bedroom door. He gets

There were many aspects of each category that foreshadows the ultimate themes of this film such as love, freedom, and crime. In the opening sequence, for example, the film starts off with a close emphasis on Bonnie’s appearance and makeup. Her red lipstick could indicate that there will be a romantic or warm, love aspect to the film. When we see red it’s usually an automatic representation of love, happiness, or even violence. Her being more cautious on her appearance indicates that she’s looking for another person to love. Caring about your appearance doesn’t always indicate that you’re trying to attract another person, but it’s one of the many options for a person to care about their appearance. The bold makeup could also represent Bonnie

In the film "12 angry men", we can see that there is no sensitivity towards the kid that is blamed for homicide of his dad. Most of the legal jurors felt that there ought to be no requirement for sensitivity since the greater part of the proof that was brought into the court has smashed the safeguard and the kid's chance on trial. The arraignment made it clear that the kid is truth be told guilty. In the underlying vote that was finished by the legal jurors, everyone votes "guilty" against the kid aside from member of juror eight. This is the place we see the significance of juror eight in light of his sensible uncertainty the jury had not found the kid liable inside of the initial 10 minutes of their debating, which would have finished the trial. Juror eight did not as a matter of course trust that the kid was blameless, but rather he realized that on the off chance that he had raised his hand at the vote, it would all end, and they won't have an opportunity to talk about the case. Juror eight in eyes trusted that if the case finished, then it will put down the value of human life.

You're not gonna tell me you believe that phony story about losing the knife, and that business about being at the movies. Look, you know how these people lie! It's born in them! I mean what the heck? I don't even have to tell you. They don't know what the truth is! And lemme tell you, they don't need any real big reason to kill someone, either! No sir! [Juror 10, page 51] This type of prejudice offended many of the other jurors, especially Juror 5 who is of similar race to the accused.

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.

According the five Methods for Influencing Other Group Members - use of reason, assertiveness, coalition building, higher values, and bargaining - when Juror Eight said: “we are talking about somebody life here, we can’t just decide within five minutes, suppose we are wrong”, he used the youth human-being life’s important and the danger of a false decision as good reasons to force other jurors in analyzing the facts carefully. He then talks about the boy’s backgrounds for appealing to logic and rational thinking of other jurors. Juror Three was overt prejudice, hostility, and used “assertiveness” to influence the other ten jurors of jury provided an antagonist for juror Eight. Juror eight used “coalition building” method to seek alignment with other group members. He never says that he believes the defendant is innocent but his mantra throughout the movie was “it’s possible!” referring to the reasonable doubt, which he convinced others’ thought. Juror Eight continued to appeal other eleven juror’s higher values by repeatedly reinforcing their moral and judicial obligation to convict only if there was no reasonable doubt. He challenged each juror to look at the facts more thoughtfully. “Bargaining” is offering an instrument exchange. Juror 8 used this method when he said: “I want to call for another vote… If there are 11 votes for guilty, I won’t stand alone… But if anyone votes not guilty, we stay here and talk it out.”

In the drama Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, juror 8 does a good job in persuading the other jurors to listen and reconsider the evidence. He uses his rhetorical appeals to captivate the other jurors attention. He gains an authority towards the other jurors which makes them trust him more. Juror 8 deconstructs the testimony and evidence with his rhetorical appeal to make the other jurors consider the innocence of the defendant.

A bench trial, the judge only hears the facts, evidence, and if the defendant looks like they did it. One juror could save a defendant's life because in 12 Angry Men it stated, “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.” Juror number eight has a point in a jury trial. It is not easy to vote for guilty. He had a reasonable doubt to vote not guilty. “I don’t know” it stated in 12 Angry Men. Juror number 8 just wanted to talk about the situation. This is a reason why a jury trial is more preferable a judge wouldn’t hesitate and give the defendant life in imprisonment. With all the evidence given a judge would have had a final verdict by now. One man stood up and helped the defendant to find him not guilty. This could happen anywhere in a jury trial. If anything jurors could change their vote to not guilty to guilty or the other way around. In a jury trial the jurors could change their vote. “ FOREMAN. I vote guilty. Number two?TWO. Not guilty. FOREMAN. Number Three?THREE. Guilty. FOREMAN. Number Four?FOUR. Guilty.FOREMAN. Number Five? FIVE. Not guilty. FOREMAN. Number Six? SIX. Not guilty. FOREMAN. Number Seven? SEVEN. Guilty.FOREMAN. Number Eight?EIGHT. Not guilty.FOREMAN. Number Nine?NINE. Not guilty. FOREMAN. Number Ten?TEN. Guilty .FOREMAN. Number Eleven? ELEVEN. Not guilty. FOREMAN. Number Twelve? TWELVE. Guilty. FOUR. Six to six.” They all voted not guilty it was all tied up.

Claim: The most powerful message that Reginald Rose demonstrates in his play 12 Angry Men would be how tone matters to convey and nudge others towards an opinion. Established Evidence: By the use of tone, it emphasizes of whom the speaker is speaking to, engages important insights and show the true intentions of a person. Evidence: For instance, Reginald Rose demonstrates the tone of juror 8 as “this boy’s been kicked around all his life” who “had a pretty terrible sixteen years,” (pg 13) who is this ideal, respectful citizen who considers this boy’s life as important as his and everyone else. He later engages into the conversation to remind others to think what if they were in the boy’s shoes instead in a

First, Juror 8 stood his ground. In the beginning the Foreman called for a vote and eleven men raised their hand for guilty while Juror 8 raised his hand for not guilty. “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.” said Juror 8 for justifying his actions. Later, when the other jurors were trying to convince Juror 8, he was quick with his arguments. To Juror 2 he said, “Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn’t have to open his mouth. That’s in the constitution. You’ve heard of it.” To Juror 10 he said, “You don’t believe the boy. How come you believe the woman? She’s one of “them” too, isn’t she?” When Juror 6 brought up the motive for the murder, Juror 8 remarked with, “…I

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 Eight kept in his mind that he needs to have evidence and think about the evidences critically and proof to other jurors that the possibility of the defendant being guilty could be less than what they think. He did not get personal about the case and stood up by himself ignoring other ways of thinking. This shows how Juror Eight was very patient even though at the beginning of the play he was all by himself. At the end, he was successful in convincing the other jurors because he understood the background and the personality of each juror as the time passed. This quote signals Juror Eight’s determination and patience to examine all the evidence and make sure the evident character of the defendant’s murder. The honest and simply request encourages a great deal of powerful tension among the jurors, many of whom are given to conflicting views.

The heart of the American Judicial System is the determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused. At the beginning of the play, the jurors all feel that the man is guilty for murdering his father and they all wanted to convict him without carrying out a detailed discussion. The persistence of juror eight, however, plays a significant role in ensuring that the correct and fair verdict is delivered. The judicial system maintains that the defendant does not have an obligation to prove his innocence. The fact is not clear to everyone as Juror 8 reminds Juror 2 about it. The fact is a key element of the judicial system and assists in the process of coming up with a verdict. The defendant is usually innocent until proven guilty. Another element of the judicial system that comes out in the play is for a verdict to stand it must be unanimous. Unanimity ensures that the