Examples Of Relativism In Hoodwinked And 12 Angry Men

A boy may die,” and changes his vote to “not guilty” which is another instance where the boy gets a fair trial. The 12th and 7th juror find it difficult to decide on which way to vote and therefore vote “not guilty” so that the boy is not “sent off to die.” The 12th juror’s lack of a defined and consistent point of view reflects America’s post war materialism. The 4th juror believed that the defendant was guilty for most of the play but then was the 2nd last juror to change his vote and admitted that he had a “reasonable doubt.” Although the audience never finds out whether the defendant was “guilty” or “not guilty” the jurors give the “kid from the slums” an honest trial.

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.

In the movie 12 Angry Men, the jurors are set in a hot jury room while they are trying to determine the verdict of a young man who is accused of committing a murder. The jurors all explain why they think the accused is guilty or not guilty. Throughout the movie they are debating back and forth and the reader begins to realize that even though the jurors should try to not let bias cloud their judgement, the majority of the jurors are blinded by bias. The viewer can also see that the jurors have their own distinguishable personalities. Their personalities intertwine with each other to demonstrate how the jury system is flawed, but that is what makes it work.

Prejudice can often be formed without one even realize they are prejudiced, many of the characters in 12 Angry Men, have done as such, allowing their prejudice to not allow them fully evaluate the case unbiasedly. Jurors three, ten and seven are swayed by their prejudiced beliefs against the accused, as the deliberate the accused fate, juror ten states “his type are no good”(12 Angry Men). This prejudice which all of them share, justifiers their neglecting to inspect the evidence and testimony given rather than simply accepting it at face value. The film 12 Angry Men conveys how difficult it can be to set aside prejudiced views through jurors three, seven, and ten. The film also enables the reader to see how prejudice such as past experiences, ingnorance or misinformation, and stereotyping can cloud ones judgement.

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.

In this novel, twelve jurors are designated to choose the verdict of a case. A sixteen-year-old boy is accused of murdering his father. If the jurors’ verdict is guilty, then the boy will receive a death sentence. The chosen jurors are locked in a room to decide the verdict, guilty or innocent. At the beginning, only one juror chose to vote not guilty, for the sake of reasonable doubt. The juror made thought out points and persuasively changed all other other jurors minds. By the end, all jurors chose to vote not guilty, except one. This particular juror voted guilty because he compared the defendant to his own son, whom he had problems with. This prejudice blocked his mind, making him confuse facts with his own judgment.

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.

In 12 Angry Men, Juror #8 tries to convince the other jurors that the defendant of the case, an 18 year old boy accused of stabbing his father to death, is not guilty based on a reasonable doubt. Throughout the film Juror #8 goes over the facts and details of the case to point out the flaws in the evidence in order to prove there is, in fact, a reasonable doubt. The film depicts the struggles of the underdog and going against the majority in order to stand up for what is right. In one scene, the piece of evidence being put into question is a testimony from an elderly man who lived below the boy and his father and claimed he heard the murder happen and saw the boy leave the apartment after it happened. It is being put into question whether the elderly man who walked with a limp could make it to his doorway in order to witness the boy running away from the crime in fifteen seconds.

While the film “Crash” has several complex characters with storylines that all become interconnected in various ways, the movie is predominantly about how prejudice plays into people’s everyday lives and how such prejudice usually has negative implications. The characters in the film all had their own prejudices, or attitudes judging others in negative ways, which set the stage for discrimination, stereotypes, racism, and scapegoats. Thus, one can see how prejudice plays such a pivotal role in people’s relations with each other. As a result, it is best to analyze this film from a symbolic interactionism point of view by analyzing how the labels the characters encounter in this film affect their perception and in turn create prejudice

The movie “Crash”, by Director and Writer Paul Haggis, follows 8 ethnically diverse families/ individuals facing the struggle of modern day racism and stereotypes created and faced in modern Los Angeles, California. These individuals take the roles of individuals living their daily lives within Los Angeles, California while facing stereotypes. The cast portrays: 2 caucasian white male police officers, an African American director and his wife, a white district attorney and his wife, a Persian immigrant family, and a Hispanic father whose occupation is a locksmith. The scene chosen from this film involves the police officers (Officer Ryan and Officer Hanson) pulling over the African American Director (Cameron Thayer) and his wife (Christine Thayer) at a traffic stop. This scene establishes two different types of theoretic sociological concepts of Thomas Theorem and cognitive dissonance.

In modern society, we often face competition to survive. We may forget our own truth because of our selfish behavior. However, no person can say that people who value their integrity highly are good people, and no one is curious about what is and is not really ethical behavior. There are always certain experiences that shape a person's moral standpoint and integrity. In Old School by Tobias Wolff, he expresses this message in the book. The main character of the book, is a fictional alter ego of Tobias Wolff. Throughout this novel, He is trying to provide the basis of truth by using various scenes, characters, and other incidents, he expressed it. Reading this novel, the audience will probably be curious about what is true and untruthful. Wolff did not say the name of the protagonist in this novel, but by writing in the first person, he portrayed the main charger as another self of himself, and through this manner, readers have had the opportunity to lead themselves. Readers are left to ask, “what is the truthfulness and false in our live.

Angry! Hostile!” This causes him to not listen to the other jurors opinions and block out any idea of the defendant being innocent. His prejudice is further understood when he says “this kid is guilty. He’s got to burn. We’re letting him slip through our fingers here.” Juror #3 is only able to see the young boy on trial as a symbol of his own son and is therefore unable to look past his own anger towards his son and see the case for what it really is. It is only through the help of juror #8 does juror #3 finally let go of his personal prejudice and sees the truth about the case and changes his vote to not guilty.

On the other hand, Kathryn Schultz is a journalist and a creator. In Kathryn Schulz’s exposition, “Evidence” numerous analogies was given to portray what proof has on one’s sentiments and activities. Kathryn Schulz investigates why we find it so filling to be precise all the time hence irritating to be mistaken, and how this state of mind toward mistakes erodes our connections. Furthermore, she goes up against us on presenting different stereotypes, from the Salem Witch Trials to multiple choice test of what’s behind the picture, all swans are white, ninety-five percent lawyers are male, and Muslims are terrorists. Drawing on scholars and writers as diverse as Augustine, Darwin, Descartes, David Hume, Thomas Kuhn, and Albert Speer, she proposes

In the movie Crash, directed by Paul Haggis, John Stuart Mill's theories on Social Justice and Utility are depicted within the context of the 20th century. Haggis' representation of a multicultural society is one built on racism and inequality, which limits the social justice people can acquire. In this film prejudice and stereotyping are prevalent when discussing legal rights and moral rights. The social situation has profound impacts on the choices people make. This society's foundation is based on injustice, although in the end, justice is served through the concept of `justice of desert'.

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.