A Comparison Of Montana 1948 And Twelve 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.

During the time Reginald Rose wrote the play Twelve Angry Men America was not an equal place for all people. A democracy is founded on the ideology that all Americans should be given a fair trial in court before being declared guilty. The twelve jurors in the play come from various backgrounds but initially, all but one vote in favor of the boy’s unforgivable sentence; while two other jurors lift two strong social stigmas and overcome their bias. One juror decided to stand up and take the time out for proper reasoning that resulted in teaching the others two jurors a lesson. Final verdicts should be made on justifiable grounds or the foundation of America’s society could be left at risk for collapse. Justifiable final verdicts are skewed

The capacity of human beings to possess different viewpoints, opinions beliefs and choices is what draws the line between man and animal. During the course of Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the viewer sees exactly what makes up the unique and complex nature of man and how these individualities can compare and contrast when combined. The message she conveyed by her depictions of the opinions of each of the jurors was that with twelve different people comes twelve different viewpoints that everyone included can learn from. By using the Marxist and Historical lens, it reveals that even though the jurors are seen as a collective, their individuality is what propels the story into a study of human nature and interpersonal communication.

In Montana 1948, it's obvious that Hayden Family are the most powerful in their area; "They couldn't arrest us- we are the law." It must be the reason why Frank, the doctor, felt that it's okay to take advantage of his American Indian patient, because he knew that no one is going to be against him; "If you could hear him talk. As if he had no more concern for what he did than if he had kicked a dog. No. He'd show more remorse over a dog." However, Wes is the only one who is responsible in capturing his brother because he is a sheriff, and he has the 'power'. That's why it's easy to say that he is responsible in carrying out justice. Yet, Wes didn't do the right thing, putting his brother in the basement instead of jail, because he is aware that Frank is the favorite son of their dad; "Then why have you got him locked up here and not over at the jail? This is your brother. My son." It's also because of the prejudice on his mind- it's shown when he didn't believed his own wife immediately when she told him that his brother is doing something immoral. As a result of his fear,

Twelve Angry Men, a play by Reginald Rose, was written in 1955 at a time when America was involved in a cold war with communist countries. It shows the strength of a deliberative process that enables individuals, who have “nothing to gain or lose,” to reach a verdict. In the American jury system “everybody deserves a fair trial” and in Twelve Angry Men the defendant gets a very fair trial. All the jurors have their own opinions on the case but in the end a decision is made. The jury, and the audience, never discovers if in fact the defendant did murder his father. His guilt or innocence seems to be almost

The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in

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.

The main theme in Montana is racism and how strongly it played its part in society back in 1948

Both Montana 1948 and Twelve Angry Men exemplify that justice provides rules and powers and the complex consequences of misusing this in the society. Although they do so in diverse ways. Twelve Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, demonstrated the misuse of power, when most of the jurors failed to use the different principles of the justice system. In the beginning of the play, eleven out of twelve jurors voted “guilty” towards a crime that had no sufficient evidence. However, after much debate, and the heroic effort of the 8th Juror who gave a “not guilty” verdict, prevented the punishment being wrongfully applied. Similar ideas were explored in Montana 1948, a novel written by Larry Watson. The misuse of power is evidently portrayed by the Hayden’s Family, as they used their good reputations to manipulate the town of Montana and operate above the law. They took advantage of the people who had no influence within the society which resulted in the distortion of facts and the corruption of justice. Whereas each text exhibited that many, but not all characters had shown broad prejudice and tendentiousness against the people who had little power that leads into sophisticated effects such that miserableness, suffering, family breakdown and especially ruining the justice system.

The film “Twelve Angry Men” directed by Sidney Lumet illustrates many social psychological principles. The tense, gripping storyline that takes place in the 1950s features a group of jurors who must decide unanimously whether a young man is guilty or innocent in the murder of his father. At the beginning, eleven of the twelve jurors voted guilty. Gradually, through some heated discussion, the jurors are swayed to a not-guilty verdict. Upon examination, the film highlights social psychology theories in areas of conformity and group influence.

The complexity of justice is evident in Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’, through the employment of Truth throughout the American 1950’s judicial system. Throughout the text, the concept of justice is forged by the racal prejudices, personal bias, emotion, logistics, and reasoning of the Jurors, thus allowing truth to hinder or prevail. Justice is shaped by truth in ‘Twelve Angry Men’, as the Jurors begin to understand the reasonable doubt in the evidence against the defendant, as the truth becomes prevalent through the Juror’s deductive capabilities, thus allowing for injustice to be hindered by the truth, which ultimately leads justice to prevail in the judicial system.

Throughout ‘Twelve Angry Men’ and ‘On the Waterfront’ both Protagonists show how they serve justice to prove their opinions and win over what they believe is right. Both protagonists show that they want to do what is right and stick with what they believe, which is testifying against Johnny friendly in ‘On the Waterfront’ and Juror 8 voting against everyone and voting not guilty in ‘Twelve Angry Men’. Juror 8 voting not guilty is a testament to his courage of conscience ‘It’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first’ along the entire storyline of the text Juror 8 does not back down and sticks up for his opinion until every other juror agrees. Similarly, Terry who is the protagonist in ‘On the Waterfront’ is given the confidence to stand up against antagonists Johnny Friendly, after being convinced that testifying and telling the truth is more important than just seeking physical revenge. After testifying he displays courage by facing the workers and Friendly at the Waterfront to reveal that he isn’t ashamed and that you can come back. By the end of both texts we are shown how each protagonist fights for their justice by standing up for their rights and doing what they want done for themselves.

Many important topics and integral information that is an essential part in the criminal justice system have been introduced in the play “12 Angry Men”. Some examples of this would be crime and justice including the laws, criminal behavior, victimization, and the criminal justice system in itself. These issues are everyday situations but many people have been oblivious to the problem. The twelve jurors have an assignment where they will have to decide whether or not the young man on trial is guilty of murdering his father or is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. All twelve men are frustrated and lack patience which lead them to be contumacious and unfocused. Their distraction led to many key facts getting misemployed and emotions start to cross making it hard for the jurors to construct a resolution. They have been oblivious to the effect that it would have on the community itself. On the information given up to this point this process essay will articulate the unenlightenment and egomaniacal principles of the twelve men in the short story and movie "Twelve Angry Men" written by Reginald Rose and directed by Sidney Lumet. Both Lumet and Rose showed their point of views of the criminal justice system in the play and the movie. Although the director's view on the justice system demonstrated the rights that everyone had, it also revealed his thoughts on how the justice system is corrupt, ineffective and unjust because all these aspects have shown the major differences in the morality of the twelve individuals and the problem at hand in the movie and play “12 Angry Men”.

Unique for its time, the film demonstrated how a mans prejudice could not be left outside the courtroom. Only Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), voted the boy, not guilty and said evidence presented could not justify the boys fate. Some men in the jury's room stated that you could not trust “those people”. The verdict was to be decided over this simple misconception. Twelve Angry Men is directed at societies broken idea of migrants and judicial system.

12 Angry Men is a 1957 American courtroom drama film adapted from a teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose. Written and co-produced by Rose himself and directed by Sidney Lumet, this trial film tells the story of a jury made up of 12 men as they deliberate the guilt or acquittal of a defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt, forcing the jurors to question their morals and values. In the United States, a verdict in most criminal trials by jury must be unanimous. The film is notable for its almost exclusive use of one set: out of 96 minutes of run time, only three minutes take place outside of the jury room.