Essay on Ignorance in 12 Angry Men

You're not gonna tell me you believe that phony story about losing the knife, and that business about being at the movies. Look, you know how these people lie! It's born in them! I mean what the heck? I don't even have to tell you. They don't know what the truth is! And lemme tell you, they don't need any real big reason to kill someone, either! No sir! [Juror 10, page 51] This type of prejudice offended many of the other jurors, especially Juror 5 who is of similar race to the accused.

Through the 8th Juror’s characteristic of a brave individual, it is evident that the play is symbolising him as a ‘hero’. From the beginning, he puts himself

The play "Twelve Angry Men", By Reginald Rose, is a play about 12 jurors that in an

Finally the endings are to be discussed. Here, the play and the movie are obviously very different. The director with his poetic license makes a very obvious change only hinted at subtly earlier on and the impact it has on the audience's conclusions at the end of the movie and the differences between that and those garnered at the end of the play are great. He tells us that Juror 3 was an abusive and uncaring father who, because he caused him to run away, has not seen his son- very similar to the defendant- in over 2 years. Ah, now we can see where his biases stem from: past negative experiences with his son, the rebellious nature of which justifies the execution of the defendant. Yet at the very end of the movie we sympathize with Juror 3 just as we did with defendant. We see his brutish, sadistic demeanor is just a façade, and at one

Juror 3 was basing his failed relationship with his son on the accused boy. The reason that he had such a bad relationship with his son is because when the boy was young, he ran away from a fight and Juror 3 said: “I’m going to make a man out of you or I’m going to bust you up into little pieces trying”. Later on, when his son was older, they got into a fight and Juror 3 hasn’t seen him since. This experience probably left him the impression that all kids take their loved ones for granted, and that they deserve severe punishments. Juror 3 is not the type to provide the sharpest evidence or information, but he is very determined to prove that the accused really did murder the victim. Juror 8 practically gives nothing away about his real life, probably because he did not want to add his own prejudices to the case. Juror 3 gave both his ill-mannered personality and bigotry away in the play.

With a very short temper to go along with his all-powerful attitude, juror three is not a nice person. Already he has threatened death towards one of the other jurors and would have made good the threat had it not been for the decisive actions of the other jurors who jumped up to hold him back.. An acrimonious and blind-sighted executioner, juror #3 is one of many that an innocent victim would not want to decide their fate. Unfortunately, democracy does not only apply to the fair and just, and undoubtedly innocent men and women have fallen prey to the unwavering wrath of men

At times the defendant is treated very unfairly and is often discriminated due to his personal background. It is certainly the 10th juror who most vehemently represents the potential frightening power of racism and xenophobia. He is convinced that the defendant is guilty and he views the defendant “not as an individual, but as a representative of a larger group.” The 10th Juror does not want any further discussions and wants the boy to be sent to the electric chair. The 10th is very unfair on the defendant and expresses his hate towards people from the slums “it’s

The personality of juror # 10 was one of hatefulness and anger. This juror was prejudice against the kid because he was from the slums. Juror # 10 said something in the movie about not being able to trust people who are from the slums. Juror # 10 had several outbursts and had a heinous attitude through most of the movie. Juror # 10 was the one who did most of the talking, when it came to trying to convince Juror # 8 that the kid was guilty. There was another Juror that had a roundabout same type of personality coming into the juror’s room as juror # 10. The juror # 3 was also bitter and obstinate towards the others, specifically when it came down to several of the other jurors changing their opinion of guilty to not guilty. Juror # 3 became hot headed and very loud and obnoxious towards everyone. Both Juror # 10 and juror # 3 were only looking at the eye witness testimony,

Everyone wants to live in a fair world, nut sadly it does not exist. Juror NO. 10 is a great example because he did not care about the kid so he voted without proof just to get everything done. Later on, act 3, juror NO. 10 was asked to state why the kid was guilty and he went for the looks and what people like the kid usually do instead of going

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

In the movie 12 Angry Men, juror number 8 (Henry Fonda) was not sure if evidence presented...

12) Why do most of the jurors get frustrated with Juror 10 (to the point that Juror Four threatens to “split (his) skull”?

Not only is there prejudiced behavior in the main conflict towards the boy but there is also to the fifth juror. Juror eleven is a refugee from Europe who has come to this country and honestly wants justice for the boy. See prejudice behavior from juror five to eleven in this piece of text.

This movie is centered on twelve jurors debating to decide the fate the young boy charged with murdering his father. We saw the jurors all defined in terms of their personalities, background, occupations, prejudices and emotional tilts. There are different displays of leadership skills in this movie. The movie opens with the jurors casting guilty votes to determine a verdict. All eleven jurors except juror 8 voted not guilty. He went against the norm and voted not guilty stating that he has doubts about the case, and wishes to give the boy who has had a disadvantaged upbringing, a fair hearing. He was ridiculed and laughed at but he remained focused, aggressive and persuasive on his belief and elaborated on what every juror has to say to keep the group focused on the deliberation. Besides, he was able to listen to everyone and displayed the appropriate attitudes, and patience to go along with the readiness of the jurors to switch their votes. Also, he showed empathy when he asked the jurors to imagine themselves in the boy’s shoes awaiting death sentence, physical abuse and torment by father, growing up in the slum. In addition,there would not had been any

Twelve Angry Men is a classic movie depicting how one determined leader can alter an entire crowd. Through dedication, curiosity, and the pursuit for the truth he is able to persuade a group of twelve to second guess even themselves. Within this heterogynous group are a dozen different personalities - some of which were leaders and most of which were not.