Comparing Justice In Twelve Angry Men And Jurassic Park

Was Justice served in 12 Angry Men or did the jury set a guilty man free?

12 Angry Men are in a 1950’s courtroom, where 12 men from various backgrounds and different personalities, find themselves deciding the fate of a teenage boy accused of murdering his father. The vote must be unanimous, with a guilty verdict resulting in the death of the young man facing trial. Juror #8, (Fonda), was not the assigned jury leader, but emerged as the primary leader within minutes of the group sequester, when juror #8 was the only no vote. Fonda’s situation allowed his leadership traits to apply with success. Fonda’s leadership was due to his ethical need for a jury decision. Fonda’s character combines his goal of having a fair deliberation concerning the young man accused of murder (task Behavior). Fonda was trying to help the eleven other jurors to feel more comfortable with thinking critically and to examine the facts closely (relationship behavior). Now that I have discussed the behavior traits of the two movies, we will discuss the Trait approach in leadership.

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 3rd Juror says that “everybody deserves a fair trial.” Does the defendant in this case get a fair trial?

“A person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a 19-year-old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence were presented, the three that are shaky include the height of the father, the woman who saw from the el train, and the old man who saw the boy running down from the stair. Based on these, the boy is not guilty.

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.

Justice is doing for others, what we would want done for ourselves. Both the play ‘Twelve Angry Men’ by playwright Reginald Rose and the film ‘On the Waterfront’ by director Elia Kazan explore justice. Rose and Kazan use a variety of characters and their challenges, as well as a range of different literary features to build their knowledge of justice shown throughout both texts. Firstly, both authors Rose and Kazan explore the use of their protagonists using justice to overcome the fears to stand up for themselves. Secondly we are shown justice from both antagonists in each text as neither of them are set up to not accept the truth to try and achieve justice. Lastly, Rose and Kazan show through the use of the setting how justice is used in more depth. Each text ultimately explores a variety of different ways of showing justice

The novel To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee and the film 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose have many similarities and differences in relation to the theme of justice and injustice. The purpose of this essay is to explore these similarities and differences and find more in depth meaning to these two texts. In both To Kill A Mockingbird and 12 Angry Men, Atticus and Juror No. 8 abstain from commonly held prejudice views and try to uphold justice fairly. In the novel, it deals with the fact that it is a black man 's word over a white 's and in the film it also has a theme of prejudice as the boy is criticised because of where he lives. Justice did not prevail in To Kill A Mockingbird, where as this was the case in 12 Angry Men where justice was served. Throughout this essay I will highlight some literary techniques and elements such as characters, theme, metaphors, hyperboles and irony.

There are many significant views and values that Reginald Rose demonstrates in 12 Angry Men the most important one being that prejudice constantly affects the truth and peoples judgement. As the jurors argue between themselves as to whether a young boy is guilty of stabbing his father it is shown that “It’s very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this.” This is most evident in the way juror #3 and juror #10 come to their decision that the young man is guilty as they bring in there prejudice against young people and people from the slums to make their judgement without considering the facts of the case. Rose uses juror #8 who can see the whole trial because he is calm, reasonable and brings no prejudice as a prime example

The influence of society upon characters in both the film and novel is imminent. However, each has a person who is not influenced by society’s expectations. In To Kill a Mockingbird it is Atticus Finch and in 12 Angry Men it is Juror 8. As both are resilient men, they are capable of thinking for themselves and can establish their own opinions on pressing issues even though “it’s not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others”. Rather than just follow the crowd, they believe that everybody is “entitled to full respect for their opinions”, whether just or not. Furthermore, their high levels of education play a strong part in both character’s moral and strong-willed natures. Blocking out the need for hatred in their lives

A story that takes place during summer in a blazing hot jury room, filled with twelve hot-tempered men, is the defendant really guilty? In 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, a young boy is accused of killing his own father ruthlessly with a knife. It is now the duty of the twelve jurors to corroborate and come up with a fair verdict. Some jurors uses emotion to deal with the case, while others uses logic and provided strong evidence to support their claim. Juror Four and Juror Eight are similar in the way that they are both open-minded, take the trial seriously, and they also uses logic to analyze problems.

What first drew me to Jurassic Park was hearing about how well the effects had stood the test of time, and how incredibly intricate the details were. When I finally watched it, however, my favorite part wasn't even the dinosaurs, but the debate on respecting nature, the character development, and each person’s view on how much control humanity has over the world around it.

Significant differences between 12 Angry Men and Runaway Jury There are many differences between Runaway Jury and 12 Angry Men three major differences are that the two trials are totally different. One is a murder trial and the other one is a civil rights trial. Another example of a difference between the play 12 Angry Men and the movie Runaway Jury is the setting one just shows the jury room and the other one shows the jury room, the courtroom and one of the jurors houses. The third difference is that in Runaway Jury the jurors are being spied on and forced to vote for the gun company by being blackmailed. The difference between the two trials is significant because in the play 12 Angry Men they are deciding on whether they should vote

Have you ever wondered what the world would be like with living dinosaurs, once again, roaming the earth? The film, Jurassic Park (1993) answers this question through the fictional recreation of the mighty creatures of the Jurassic period. As science advances, new technology emerges which allows the cloning of dinosaurs through a source of DNA recovered from ancient mosquitos. This revival of life, comparable to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, brings up a magnitude of ethical issues that become increasingly evident as the plot of the film escalates. Through analyzation of ethical identity I will discuss three key issues apparent in the film: the ethics of reviving an extinct species, the ethics of Nedry stealing DNA, and the ethics of creating and monetizing Jurassic Park. Furthermore, I will assess the ethics and provide my opinion on the dilemma with consideration of the societal morals of the period. Thus, I will delve into the ethics of reviving an extinct species.

As a member of today’s society, it is easy to become largely aware of the need individuals crave to know everything about everything. Whether it be the topic of entertainment, environmental issues or politics we seem to have a lingering curiosity as a people to be aware of the ins and outs of the world we live in. Just as often as we see this constant curiosity we also see the lack of true initiative. Many areas of our society today call for both our interst and knowledge so that we may fulfill the position of being and active member of the society that we live in.