Analysis Of Twelve Angry Men

The judge is the character that emphasizes this in the play as he ‘urges’ the Jurors ‘to deliberate honestly and thoughtfully’ (Rose p.5) because without doing this a fair decision about the prosecution of the accused cannot be made. Rose also focuses on the concept of reasonable doubt to provide a decent trial and shows how important it is in our jury system. Twelve Angry Men is not really about guilt or innocence than it is about the concept of reasonable doubt. This is also important to the 8th Juror who implies that the Jurors ‘have reasonable doubt, and this is a safeguard which has enormous value to our system’ (Rose p.66). Rose wants us to see reasonable doubt as the evidence needed to give a person a fair trial because as Juror 3 states ‘Everybody deserves a fair trial. That´s the system’ (Rose p.7). Reasonable doubt is a portentous part of America´s judicial system and Rose makes his characters all have an understanding of this so the reader of the play also has a decent understanding of

12 Angry Men is a movie centered around a murder case and the 12 men that are in charge of providing a verdict for a kid charged of first degree murder of his own father. In this movie, the characters have to face a long and grueling procedure of figuring out how to charge the kid after a six day long trial and hours long deliberation between the jurors. The film of 12 Angry Men has several key psychological aspects to it that can be accurately and summarily described.

When analyzing the film, 12 Angry Men, one will notice the reasoning is not consumed by the story, but by the characters and their involvement and interaction. In a brief summary of the film, it contains twelve jurors who are all participating in a trial. The trial is concerning a young adolescent who is being appointed for the death of his father. “Credit the power of this lucid study to the fact that the attributes, failings, passions and prejudices of these tales men is as striking and important as the awesome truth that they hold a boy's life in their hands” (Weiler). Through out the story, the juror’s personalities and qualities are shown, each having their own opinion of the plea bargain. Identified in detail through this analysis, one will be able to clearly depict the different characterization of the jurors. Along with their individual personas, all of the juryman fall under the category of either being Socratic or a sophist in Aristocratic terms. When looking at the arguments among the jurors one can see the different logical styles utilized, and which were effect versus the not effective approaches. Progressively through the movie, the argument grows and each juror becoming their own. When criticizing and evaluating the content of 12 Angry Men, the real meaning behind the story becomes apparent. The connotation of this film is studying the actions of the jurors and what each one brings the case in terms of rhetoric and Aristocratic style.

Daily there are thousands of people being found guilty for a crime they did not commit because of a prejudiced judge.Sidney Lumet and Reginald Rose the writers and directors of 12 Angry Men wrote and produced a play about 12 jurors that briefly discuss a trial and come to a verdict , personal issues develop which causes conflict and only makes the process more grueling. The accused boy is being found guilty for murdering his father, 12 jurors are put in a hot room in New York and spend hours briefly viewing the scenario. Although one might think that the justice system should be left in the hands of citizens ,the director and writer of 12 Angry Men , Sidney Lumet and Reginald Rose demonstrate that the United States justice system is unfair and is simply corrupt , inefficient , and injustice due to the jurors biases minds, ignorant attitude ,and the lack of time and energy put in the trial while trying to decide a verdict.

The play by Reginald Rose, ‘Twelve Angry Men’ is a powerful, moving play with a perspective made up of a variety of point of views from different Jurors who have distinct and contrasting backgrounds, social-economic states, ethics and personalities. Rose enforces and emphasises dramatic conflict and action with the use of techniques such as pathetic fallacy and claustrophobia in the setting to enforce and set the build-up of tension in the room.

Reginald Rose’s play, Twelve Angry Men, examines not only character but America’s judicial system as well. It is a jury’s responsibility to find the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt; if there is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, it is the jury’s duty to find the defendant not guilty. However, not all doubt can be eliminated. The motif of doubt is introduced by the Eighth Juror. The Eighth Juror establishes doubt in his peers through the symbolism in the switchblade knife he obtained.

12 Angry Men Summary Fucking hot in the room…say something about the environment Coach -sets the stage for the negotiation by assigning seats based on juror number -said “you fellas can handle this any way you want to, im not going to make any rules”…he should have assumed more of a leadership role from the start -showed signs of becoming a good mediator by redirecting Advertising man’s attention back to the discussion. But then, he said to HF “and we might be able to show you were you were mixed up.” -Coach offered to hand control to GO after GO called Coach a kid…caused a confrontation should have separated people from problem. Took shit too personally -did nothing when Ad man and MSO played TTT…gave up leadership role to HF

The story of 12 Angry Men begins in a New York City courthouse at the conclusion of a murder trial. The judge order the 12 men of the jury to recess and decide on a guilty or not guilty verdict for a 18 year old boy charged with murdering his father. The judge informs them that a guilty decision by the jury will result in a death sentence for the boy as the judge will not show any leniency. The 12 men are lead to the jury room where they will stay locked up until a decision is made. They quickly go to a vote without much discussion and find out that 11 of the 12 men are ready to pass a guilty verdict but 1 man decides to vote not guilty so that they can at least discuss the case. This quickly draws the ire of the other jurors who have all made up their minds already and just want to leave. This sets the stage for the movie as now they other 11 men try to persuade juror #8 into a guilty vote, or perhaps the other way around.

The movie Twelve Angry Men portrays an array of group dynamics by including the structure and functioning of groups, as well as the different types of roles each character plays along with their conflicts. The film displays these elements through a jury deliberation and the joint effort and the functioning of several minds together to search for the truth. These are just a few characteristics of group dynamics at work that is seen throughout the film.

The year is 1984 and Darryl Hunt has just been sentenced a life in prison for the alleged rape and slaughter of Deborah Sykes. In 2004, he was set free after nearly 20 years behind bars because he was wrongly convicted based off false eye witness testimonies given during the trial (Blau, 2016). There was no physical evidence that connected him to the crime, yet, but based on the eye witness testimonies he was sentenced to a life behind bars for a crime he never committed. A somewhat similar scenario plays out in the film 12 Angry Men, when a jury is forced to deliberate on a life or death sentence for a boy who allegedly killed his own father. While this case has the evidence stacked against the accused boy, a lone member of the jury is not convinced and takes it upon himself to play devil’s advocate on behalf of the boy in the hopes of saving him from certain death. This becomes a high stakes battle of wits, when the juror meets opposition from the eleven other members of the jury, and is forced to bring the other jurors in opposition of the prosecution’s case against the boy.

We are very fortunate to live in a country where our legal system is designed to give everyone a fair trial. One of the great advantages of our legal system is that if someone is convicted of a crime they are innocent until proven guilty. The hope and mission of our judicial system is to correctly convict the people who have actually committed the crime. To prove their guilt while also making sure we are not convicting an innocent person. However, our system is not perfect and there are some flaws. Unfortunately, since jurors are just people and not computers or machines mistakes can be made. When putting your life in another person’s hands, such as a juror, you hope for the best, but that is not always enough. Sometimes there are certain variables, which can impact decisions and alter a person’s life forever. The movie “12 Angry Men” is a great example of how these variables play a role in determining a person’s innocence. Throughout this movie there were numerous examples of psychological science. The four domains I will focus on are stereotyping, eyewitness testimony, attribution process and problem solving.

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.

The film from 1957, 12 Angry Men, directed by Sidney Lumet, is a clear scenario of the group decision making process. It portrays the story of a young man, that as the movie develops we come to find out that he is 16-years-old, the young man is facing a first degree murder charge; the allegation is that he stabbed his father. The twelve jurors in the case have to agree by unanimous decision in a guilty or not guilty verdict, if found guilty the young man is facing the death penalty, if found not guilty he is to walk away free. The judge, before dismissing the jurors to deliberate on the verdict makes remarks that imply the “culpability” of the young man.

In life people are tasked by different dilemmas and they have to make decisions from time to time. In this film “12 Angry Men” it can be equated to daily activities involving decision making. In this film there are 12 men who have been tasked as jurors to make a verdict on a young boy who has been accused of killing his abusive father. When a vote is taken at first it is realized that of all the 12 jurors, juror number eight votes against all the eleven claiming that he is not sure if the boy is guilty and that when they have to discuss and come up with a verdict, since the jury is allowed to give one single verdict that is unanimous. What hinders the whole debate is the