Arguments In 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.

Check your intuitions—neither dismiss them, nor trust them blindly. In the play, Twelve Angry Men, the Jurors are always checking their intuitions. The Jurors’ intuitions are going to change whether the accused is guilty or not. The judge says, “If there is a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused—then you must declare him not guilty.

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

Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’ is a play which displays the twelve individual jurors’ characteristics through the deliberation of a first degree murder case. Out of the twelve jurors, the 8th Juror shows an outstanding heroism exists in his individual bravery and truthfulness. At the start, the 8th Juror stands alone with his opposing view of the case to the other eleven jurors. Furthermore, he is depicted as a juror who definitely understands the jury system and defends it from the jurors who do not know it fully. At the end, he eventually successes to persuade the eleven other jurors and achieves a unanimous verdict, showing his

In the play “Twelve Angry men”, the story line presents a variety of perspectives and opinions between twelve very different men. Some are more likely to be pointed out as prejudice, and others are more focused on reaching fair justice. Clearly, it is quite difficult for different people to vote ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ in unity when coming to a fair decision. In all of the twelve jurors, I have chosen Juror 3 and Juror 8 for contrast and comparison. I believe that Juror number 3 is a very opinionated man, with more differences than similarities comparing with Juror number 8.

The play “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a drama about twelve jurors deciding on whether a nineteen year old boy is guilty of murdering his father. The boy has a lengthy list of criminal changes, three witnesses testifying against him, and a weak alibi. This compels eleven of the twelve jurors to detect him as guilty. However, one juror believes that the others are not deciding fairly and are stereotyping. Juror eight, the one who names the boy not guilty, spends the entirety of the play persuading and arguing with the extremely irritable and opinionated juror three.

Reginald Rose’s text, Twelve Angry Men, follows the jury deliberation of a small murder case, with a cast of twelve jury men discussing the evidence presented in court to decide whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. Over the course of the play, led primarily by moral compass jury number 8, the verdict is changed from eleven to one to acquittal, as the men are persuaded and subject to constant distractions, prejudice, bullying, and discussions of unreliable witness testimonies and lawyers, thus exploring issues about the validity of the justice system in magnitude.

Twelve Angry Men is a play that shows the workings of the American Justice System. The play is a celebration of the judicial system, and the main theme of the play is the triumph and the fragility of justice. The defendant’s fate is on the hand of the jurors as the man is accused of a serious offense which is murder. The purpose of the essay is to show the role that the plot, characters and the conflicts among the jurors support the theme of justice. Each juror had an initial verdict when the play begins but as events unfold and conflicts and agreements are reached the final and fair verdict is presented.

The play and film of Twelve Angry Men show how being in a jury requires a great deal of logic, along with the ability to look over a case thoroughly. At first, the majority of the jurors think that the boy is guilty. They all believe that there is sufficient evidence to prove it. However, juror number eight points out that there are reasonable doubts, and that there is not enough hard evidence to prove the boy guilty. Some information throughout the story is more important or major than other parts, and some information and details were changed throughout the play and the film. Even though the play and the film are similar, there are major and minor details that are changed inside of both stories that make them unique.

In the 1957 classic 12 Angry Men, group dynamics are portrayed through a jury deliberation. Group dynamics is concerned with the structure and functioning of groups as well as the different types of roles each character plays. In the film, twelve men are brought together in a room to decide whether a boy is guilty of killing his father. The personality conflicts, the joint effort and the functioning of several minds together to search for the truth are just a few characteristics of group dynamics at work. The whole spectrum of humanity is represented in this movie, from the bigotry of Juror No.10 to the coldly analytical No.4. Whether they brought good or bad qualities to the jury room, they all affected the outcome.

Reginald Rose’s ’12 Angry Men’ brings 12 jurors together in a room to decide whether a young foreign boy is guilty of killing his father. The play is interwoven with dynamic characterisation, striking symbolism and intense moments of drama. Although Rose positions Juror 8 as the hero, the strongest character is in fact Juror 4, who is an independent thinker, rational and calm even as tension begins to build. Although Juror 4 initially votes guilty, he is able to admit his fault and change his vote.

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.

Twelve Angry Man has a lot of great, hidden themes throughout the movie. One of these themes is that prejudice can block someone from the truth. This theme is present throughout the movies characters, more specifically, in the jurors three, seven, and ten. The third juror is the old man that yells a lot, swears a lot, and insults almost every person that changes their votes. He believes the kid on trial is guilty because he specifically said, “I will kill you;” no matter of evidence changes his vote. We find out at the end the reason he wants this kid to be on death road. The third juror breaks down mentally in front of the other jurors, he wants this boy to go to jail because he talks about how these “kids” do not respect their ends. This

12 Angry Men is a 1957-drama film that tells the story of a jury’s deliberation in determining the guilt or acquittal of the defendant. All jury members are older white gentleman with strong personalities. The wide ranges of personalities tend to cause conflict and tension among the group of men. Throughout the film these men work on many consensus-building techniques but often come across difficulties during the process. Luckily, they are provided with a leader who maintains organization, order and equal opportunities for all jurors to speak. Juror one, who is also known as the foreman, is given the job of leading the jurors to come to a unanimous decision. The foreman is a smaller gentleman who seems to be impressed by the authority he has, which puts hurdles in his leadership skills.

The 1957 film, 12 Angry Men showcases several forms of leadership in action. With twelve men deliberating on the outcome of a young minority who is on trial for the suspected murder of his father, there is ample opportunity to witness different styles of leadership. Each character is dynamic and they show a range of personalities. From the juror number eight’s questioning nature to juror number ten’s bigotry, they all are quite diverse. However, one of the main things this film showcases is the need for a high level of morality. This is personified in juror number eight.