First Degree Murder In The Film 12 Angry Men

The setting of 12 Angry Men is a jury deliberation room where the jurors are and required to decide the guilt or innocence of an 18 year old that is accused of committing first-degree murder by stabbing his father with a switchblade knife. Witnesses were presented to give evidence of hearing a quarrel; hearing a threat to kill, and have seeing the boy run away. Another witness swore to having seen the boy stabbing his father from a window across from where the murder occurred. Eleven jurors were convinced the boy was guilty and deserved the death penalty. One raised questions he felt had not been asked or had not been pursued by the defense.

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

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.

12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are the jury for an 18 year old accused of murder. The judge states in the opening scene that it is a premeditated murder in the 1st degree, if found guilty will automatically receive the death penalty. The 18 year old male is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade, in their home. The prosecutors have several eye witness testimonies, and all of the evidence that they could need to convict the 18 year old male. In the movie it takes place on the hottest day of the year in New York City. There are 12 jurors whom are to decide if the evidence is enough to convict the teen of murder in the first degree. In the first initial vote it is 11-1. The only way that the jurors could turn in

The classic movie 12 Angry Men opens with clips of a courthouse, ultimately panning to a specific court room where an 18-year-old boy is on trial for killing his father. Despite the case being the central point which the story revolves around, the movie isn’t about the boy or even his father. The movie is about the 12 jurors who are in charge of the boy’s fate. If they decide he is guilty, he is sentenced to the death penalty, which meant death by the electric chair.

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

The classic 1957 movie 12 Angry Men delves in to a panel of twelve jurors who are deciding the life or death fate of an eighteen year old italian boy accused of stabbing his father to death. The twelve men selected as jurors are a diverse group, each coming to the table with their own socioeconomic backgrounds, personal experiences, prejudice’s, and all of this plays a role in the jurors attitudes and/or misconceptions of the accused young man. How each of the jurors, all but Juror Eight played by Henry Fonda, experiences and personalities impact their original vote of guilty is clear at the beginning of the movie with the first vote. However, from the start, Juror Eight displays confidence, and demonstrates leadership abilities utilizing

The movie 12 Angry Men takes place in a room of 12 jurors as they discuss the guilt of a boy charged with the murder of his father. The facts of the case have been laid out, and each juror already has decided how they feel. Initially the vote was 11-1 guilty. The one vote for not guilty came from Juror Number Eight, Mr. Davis, played by Henry Fonda. Mr. Davis voted not guilty because he had reasonable doubt about evidence presented by the prosecution. As Mr. Davis explains his reasoning behind his reasonable doubt, the core values of himself and other jurors are displayed. As the movie continues, the vote slowly turns from 11-1 guilty to 12-0 not guilty. Mr. Davis brings up point after point that force his fellow jurors to analyze themselves and in the end, change the way they vote. Ultimately, the 1957 film 12 Angry Men forces the audience to look inward after watching the juror’s words, manners, and priorities change throughout the jury session.

Reginald Rose’s play ‘12 Angry Men’ entirely takes place in a small New York City jury room where 12 male jurors have convened to decide the verdict in a homicide case. The verdict of this case will decide if a young boy will be charged with murdering his father, with a switchblade knife, on the first degree. The film shows us nothing of the trial itself except for the judge 's perfunctory, almost bored, charge to the jury where he reminds them that they must base their unanimous decision of “guilty” or “not guilty” on whether or not there is “reasonable doubt” in their minds as to the guilt of the accused. His tone of voice indicates the verdict is a foregone conclusion. We hear neither prosecutor nor defense attorney, and learn of the

In the courtroom, justice and mercy tend to cause a conflict regarding the defendant’s sentencing. On one side, pity tends to fall as the motive for one’s argument. In the other hand, many seek fairness to play the decision of the defendant’s future. With the conclusion of the play 12 Angry Men, justice takes a great importance in deciding the fate of the defendant.

Many important topics and integral information that is an essential part in the criminal justice system have been introduced in the play “12 Angry Men”. Some examples of this would be crime and justice including the laws, criminal behavior, victimization, and the criminal justice system in itself. These issues are everyday situations but many people have been oblivious to the problem. The twelve jurors have an assignment where they will have to decide whether or not the young man on trial is guilty of murdering his father or is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. All twelve men are frustrated and lack patience which lead them to be contumacious and unfocused. Their distraction led to many key facts getting misemployed and emotions start to cross making it hard for the jurors to construct a resolution. They have been oblivious to the effect that it would have on the community itself. On the information given up to this point this process essay will articulate the unenlightenment and egomaniacal principles of the twelve men in the short story and movie "Twelve Angry Men" written by Reginald Rose and directed by Sidney Lumet. Both Lumet and Rose showed their point of views of the criminal justice system in the play and the movie. Although the director's view on the justice system demonstrated the rights that everyone had, it also revealed his thoughts on how the justice system is corrupt, ineffective and unjust because all these aspects have shown the major differences in the morality of the twelve individuals and the problem at hand in the movie and play “12 Angry Men”.

In the play Twelve Angry Men, Juror number 8’s role is to try and decide whether a 16 year old teenager is guilty or not of killing his father. He is especially important to the play because he votes not guilty because he had a reasonable doubt, and that meant that he would have to use tiny clues and facts to see if the boy was in fact guilty.

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.

In the play, 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, a nineteen-year old boy is accused of the murder of his father. Throughout the play, the jurors argue the boy’s innocence and guilt. Juror Four argues that, “[...] slums are breeding grounds for criminals [...]. The children that come out of slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society”(Rose I. 21). Juror Four, as well as ten other jurors, all agree that because the boy came from a bad background, he is destined to be a criminal and should be executed for the murder. This

The 1957 movie version of 12 Angry Men, brings twelve people together with different personalities and experiences to discuss the fate of a young boy that allegedly killed his father. At the very beginning, many agree that the boy is guilty except for one man. Juror #8 votes not guilty and pushes to have the evidence talked through. After reviewing all the evidence carefully, the tables turned from guilty to not guilty. Each juror brought different experiences and personalities to the jury room. The two that were forceful with their opinions and their reasonings to decide either way we're jurors #8 and #3.