Essay On 12 Angry Men

Despite the fact that Nichol hadn’t said something as explicit as she saw David stabbing Gail, the prosecutor read her statement in front of the jury. Matters at David’s trial were worsened due to the emerging of a story involving a situation that occurred at a party back in May. Other teenagers had teased David of being a murder suspect, following which he stabbed a pillow and joked about killing Gail, due to being intoxicated. As a result, the jury members found David guilty of Gail’s rape and murder on January 31st 1970.

Over the last 60 year laws have significantly changed around the world. In 1957 New York’s penalty for 1st degree murder was the death sentence. In order for an accused to be convicted 12 jurors must come to a unanimous consensus of a guilty verdict. The film 12 Angry Men directed by Sidney Lumet and produced by Henry Fonda and Reginald Rose is about 12 jurors who are attempting to come to a unanimous decision involving an 18 year old boy who allegedly stabbed his father to death. Within the first five minutes of their deliberation 11 jurors voted for a guilty verdict; all expect jurors eight who believe that they should spend some time to discuss, before sending an 18 year old boy to die (Lumet, 1957). During the course of 80 minutes

It demonstrates that most people put their personal feelings when it comes to trials like these. Even though there are people that will say that they are not racist or

Inside a room where life or death decisions are made, twelve men sit with wandering thoughts. The made up minds of some jurors are to send a boy to his death without a second thought, but one other juror may change that. Inside of the play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose, Juror 8 has the persuasive evidence to change the minds of his fellow Jurors and save a boy from his execution. The other Juror’s seem like they won’t budge with their mind set on the decision of guilty, but after Juror 8 proves his thoughts on the decision of innocent, he may just be able to save a young life.

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

The first major fact that influences the juries agreement that the accussed is not guilty is the doubts of a key piece of evidence; the murder weapon, a switch

It is the juror's responsibility to prove the boy guilty or not. Many of these jurors applied their biases to the way the boy grew up and was treated throughout his life. They have created false accusations that are not necessarily accurate. They argue that teenagers his age have no sense of morality or respect for their elders. Which could be a justifiable reasoning for the murder of his own father. Juror Three appears to be prejudiced towards the boy due to the fact that his own son resented him and moved out. It is not uncommon to develop an explicit bias after generalizing impressions from a personal experience and applying that to all groups of that kind such as age, religion, etc. As Juror Eight votes not guilty during a vote, the third juror becomes infuriated and disagrees while ranting about how the defendant is completely guilty due to evidence. Two different categories came into play as Juror Three expressed his feelings about his own son relating to the boy on

The 3rd juror from the drama “Twelve Angry Men” is another character that play an important role in the drama. Throughout the drama he argues hi point that the boy is guilty. To him it's clear that the boy is guilty because in a democracy you must decide based on the evidence given. In the drama “Twelve Angry Men” page 103 paragraph 82 - 83 it states “ I really think this is one of those open and shut things.” The 3rd juror is sharing his opinion that he thinks the boy is guilty based on the evidence he heard. The 3rd juror treats the accused a if he was a adult because of the crime he committed. He believes that the accused should be trialed as an adult and he receive the full punishment. In the drama “Twelve Angry Men” page 102 paragraph 75 - 76 it states “ I mean, lets be reasonable. You sat in court and heard the same things we did. The man’s a dangerous killer. You could see it.” The 3rd juror is stating that in

1/2 hours later, 15 year old Brenton Butler is arrested by Jacksonville police. Everything was against him he is identified by the only witness, Mr Stephens (Mrs. Stephens husband). For the investigators and the media who cover the story, it is just another messed up kid, just another wasted life. But when the case for the defense comes into the hands the lawyers, the story comes to be quite so usual. The boy states that he is innocent. He has bruises on his face. He tells that the detectives & officers beat him up and forced him to a confession out of him. & the one who hit the hardest is a certain Glover, Sheriff of Jacksonville. Everyone police, media and public opinion is ready to sentence Brenton Butler, but Patrick McGuinness begins a battle to restore his client's rights and to point an accusing finger at those he considers to be the real culprits detectives Williams, Glover and

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.

Statement of Facts “Twelve Angry Men” is a fictional story which tells of story of jurors deliberating over if the teenage son who was accused of murdering his father. The evening of the murder the defendant and his father had an argument. The father hit the son like he did many times in the past. After this encounter the defendant left the apartment. At approximately at midnight witnesses state they saw the stabbing and hearing the defendant yell, “I'll kill you.”

After witnessing a murder from being in the wrong place at the wrong time, Samuel Lapp and his mother,Rachel Lapp, are ordered to be under protection from detective John Book in the film Witness. Samuel failed to identify the possible murderer from the line up of men or clips and pictures but sees a published article of officer James McFee. Young Sam informs Book that McFee definitely was apart of the murder. Book memorizes that McFee was accountable of a drug bust on explosive chemicals,but all evidence died in this case. Book must take Rachel and Samuel, to escape from Rachel’s hometown.

He spent the rest of the play arguing that always practice patients. He also gives a very provoking example of contemporary leadership as this leads to the matter of power of leading others and he was among those leaders as the was able to convince the other leaders regarding the boy’s case that he is being innocent. He is convinced that there is reasonable doubt. Eventually he persuades the other jurors to acquit the defendant (Bradford). This shows that how he convinced other jurors through his work and dedication as well as strong character.

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.”

The right to a trial by jury is a core element of the United States Criminal Justice System. This right is guaranteed to all citizens by the highest law of the land: The United States Constitution. But are juries truly an effective means of securing justice? The movie 12 Angry Men provides commentary on this question with its portrayal of twelve jurors deliberating over a murder case. The jury initially seems bound to condemn the defendant, a young man of nineteen years, to the electric chair, but a single man, Juror no. 8 descents against the majority. Over the course of the film, tensions rise, and after much debate Juror no. 8 manages to convince the other eleven jurors to eventually vote not guilty. Through their debates and casual side conversations, we are shown the role of personal biases and group manipulation tactics that can impede with objective analysis and ultimately the attainment of justice. Thus, the Movie 12 Angry Men mostly serves to challenge the jury system as a means of securing justice by demonstrating the harmful effects of personal biases, the lack of dedication to the system, and the potential for manipulative tactics.