Guilty In John Steinbeck's Twelve Angry Men

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

Twelve Angry Men, a play by Reginald Rose, was written in 1955 at a time when America was involved in a cold war with communist countries. It shows the strength of a deliberative process that enables individuals, who have “nothing to gain or lose,” to reach a verdict. In the American jury system “everybody deserves a fair trial” and in Twelve Angry Men the defendant gets a very fair trial. All the jurors have their own opinions on the case but in the end a decision is made. The jury, and the audience, never discovers if in fact the defendant did murder his father. His guilt or innocence seems to be almost

After watching the movie , “Twelve angry men” you realize something important. Economic, social and cultural factors actually have a significant impact on the process of justice. Life situations , religion & culture , In many ways in fact. Some examples from the movie include , when juror #8, acted out a scene , when they used an actual train as an example and lastly when the last juror finally gave up and agreed not guilty , but this whole time used his life as a reason why he shouldn't be.

One has impressions on her nose, and then she must wear glasses. If she wears glasses, her eyesight is probably poor. If her eyesight is probably poor, then her testimony is questionable. Hypothetical reasoning.

The last major fact that influences the juries agreement that the accused is not guilty are doubts of another witness’s testimony; the lady across the street who supposedly saw the accused young man stab his father. The jurors started talking about needing glasses to read the clock when Juror 8 realizes that the lady used very strong glasses and it is not possible that she could have had time to put them on and see the young man clearly stab his father. Juror 8 says,

Twelve Angry Men, is a play written by Reginald Rose. The play is about the process of individuals and a court case, which is determining the fate of a teenager. It presents the themes of justice, independence and ignorance. Rose emphasises these three themes through the characters and the dialogue. Justice is the principle of moral rightness or equity. This is shown through juror number eight who isn’t sure whether or not the boy is actually innocent or guilty, but he persists to ask questions and convinces the other jurors to think about the facts first. Independence is shown through both juror number three and ten. They both believe that the defendant is guilty until they both realise that they can not relate there past experiences with

Juror #8 is a calm and reasonable man which makes it easier for him to judge the case fairly and justly without any prejudice. Juror #8 never said he believed the defendant to be innocent he only wanted to take the role of being a juror seriously and talk about the case before a young boy is sent off to die. “I’m not trying to change your mind it’s just that we’re talking about somebody’s life here… we can’t decide in five minutes.” Because he brings no prejudice in the jury room he is able to look at the facts and carefully decide on his judgement. Juror #8 recognizes other peoples prejudice and tries not to convince them that the boy is innocent but to have them let go of that prejudice and decide based on the facts whether they truly believe the defendant is guilty or not. Rose uses both juror

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”.

For instance, when Juror 4 said to everyone regarding about a baffling conflict, “I don't see any need for arguing like this. I think we ought to be able to behave like gentlemen." (16) This shows how Juror 4 is confident and determined to resolve the case and not play around. He tries very hard to calm many jurors down instead of letting it go and think of other things, this shows that he cares about the case. Moreover, Juror 8 also shows us that he cares about the case because he thinks and tries very hard to back up his claim so that is seems believable. To illustrate, when Juror 8 tries to retort back to a claim he thinks is false, “Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn't have to open his mouth. That's in the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment. You've heard of it." (18) This quote reveals how he is confident with his knowledge and tries very hard to think of a rebuttal against Juror 2 argument. He thinks that a rebuttal against a false statement is very important, because he doesn’t want Juror 2 to convince other people with his statement. In another example, Juror 8 exhibits how he takes the trial seriously by investigating the case in his own time, “I’m just saying it’s possible ... I got it last night in a little junk shop around the corner from the boy's house. It cost two dollars." (24). In his own time, Juror 8 tries to find a similar knife that has been used in the murder, and successful bought one. This shows how he is willing to sacrifice his own time to find evidence for the case, it shows that he cares about the case and take the trial seriously. By taking the trial seriously, it reveals how both of the jurors is a fair person and wanted to give a fair trial and justice to the

The film, 12 Angry Men highlights many of the great things about the American justice and jury system. The film shows the beauty in having a jury needed to be unanimous in order to make its final decision. With people capable to not vote guilty because they have merely reasonable doubt opens the floor to healthy arguments and discussion. This really allows

The film from 1957, 12 Angry Men, directed by Sidney Lumet, is a clear scenario of the group decision making process. It portrays the story of a young man, that as the movie develops we come to find out that he is 16-years-old, the young man is facing a first degree murder charge; the allegation is that he stabbed his father. The twelve jurors in the case have to agree by unanimous decision in a guilty or not guilty verdict, if found guilty the young man is facing the death penalty, if found not guilty he is to walk away free. The judge, before dismissing the jurors to deliberate on the verdict makes remarks that imply the “culpability” of the young man.

The movie “12 Angry Men” is about a group of men deliberating the sentence of an eighteen-year old boy accused of using a switchblade knife to kill his father. There are twelve diverse group members that discuss the murder trial to determine the young boy’s future. At the beginning the twelve men vote on if the boy is guilty or not guilty. The result was eleven to one in favor of guilty. Juror eight voted not guilty because he believed that there should be a discussion before giving the young boy the death sentence. The discussion takes place for several hours in a hot room that is locked until the vote is unanimous. Tension begins to escalate and members begin disclosing

The movie “Twelve Angry Men,” portrays the story of twelve jurors from different walks of life and how they came to a difficult decision regarding the life of an eighteen year old Puerto Rican defendant. The defendant is on trial for premeditated first degree murder of his father. The scene takes place in a New York City jury room. The evidence presented to the jury alleged the youth murdered his father with a switchblade the night of the murder. The story began at the close of the trial, as the presiding judge gives his final instructions to the jurors. The judge advised the jurors of the charge, and let them know that if the defendant is found guilty it would result in a death penalty. The judge releases the jurors to deliberate and make the difficult decision.

The initial vote is 11 guilty/ 1 not guilty (Juror 9); therefore, Juror 9 has to use his persuasion skills to convince the rest of the jurors that there is a doubt about the accused’s guilt. Slowly and methodically, Juror 9 begins to poke holes in the prosecution’s argument and show the fallacies in the arguments offered. He demonstrates how the weapon used is common and easily obtained; therefore, the fact that the accused has one in his possession does not imply guilt. Also, Juror 9 shows that the timing mentioned by the lone eye-witness did not match up with the actual events. Through

The lady insisted she saw the murder through the window of the moving L Train. In any case, Juror No. 9, understands that the lady who purportedly observed the murder had impressions on the sides of her nose, demonstrating that she wore glasses, however she failed to wear them in court. A few members of the jury affirm that they saw a similar thing. Also, Juror No. 8 who wear glasses also, expressed she would not have been wearing her glasses while attempting to rest and brings up that the assault happened so quickly that she wouldn't have time to put them on. She couldn't be certain that she saw the young fellow confer the murder. Ultimately, past the extent of reasonable doubt, the lady would have never been permitted to occur in a jury circumstance, and would in reality have yielded a