Important Details In 12 Angry Men By Reginald Rose

Also pages 16 and 21 juror proves again his point by saying “[…] the old man couldn’t have heard the boy say I’m going to kill you, but supposing he did [..] How many times has each of you used it […] this doesn’t mean that we’re going to kill you” and

People's bias and predispositions can affect their opinion of different circumstances and different people. This is very evident throughout the play. After the first group vote and juror 8 votes not guilty, a discussion ensues. It is there that

This causes another juror to vote not guilty. The 11 jurors initially chose to vote guilty because they believed the young man was bad and it is morally “acceptable” or right to punish those who commit horrible crimes, like murder. They did not think about other confounding variables and whether or not to question the testimonies of witnesses and the evidence. The 11 jurors wanted to be righteous. Both attributions and stereotypes heavily influenced the jurors’ thinking into voting guilty. In regards to stereotypes, one of the defendants chose to vote guilty because the defendant grew up in a slum and the particular juror believes that all those who are born in a slum are criminals. In regards to attribution, one of the other jurors thought the defendant is guilty on the sole basis of the knife’s presence. An example of normative social influence is the juror who is sick and sneezes quite often. He mentions the comment of “There always has to be one”. This occurs when Henry Fonda’s character votes not guilty. The juror initiates this attitude and makes the particular comment in order to convince everyone else to cast the same

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.

To add, Juror Eight came up with possible scenarios that may have happened at the murder scene. He also put himself in the shoes of the witnesses to help the other jurors understand what may have really happened. By doing so he helped to uncover the truth about the murder through his relentless effort to prove that he was right about his claim that the boy was innocent. In Act II page 39 Juror Eight goes over the old man’s testimony just to see if everyone is on the same page, “ ...he says he got up, went out into the hall, down the hall to the front door and opened it and looked out just in time to see the boy racing down the stairs...fifteen seconds after he heard the body fall...do you mind if I try it...according to you, it’ll only take fifteen seconds.” Juror eight then continues to act the old man’s testimony out on page 41 of Act II the stage directions state, “ EIGHT begins to get up. Slowly, he swings his legs over edges of chairs, reaches for imaginary canes and struggles to his feet… EIGHT walks as a crippled old man would walk now. He goes toward chair which is serving as bedroom door. He gets

The film uses juror three to demonstrate how past experiences can influence ones prejudice in decision making. Juror 3, who has a prejudice against the accused, and thinks the kid is under-privileged and doesn’t deserve a second chance, which is reason enough for him to conclude the accused is guilty. As the discussion continues as to the verdict of the trial, juror three grows frustrated and angrily refutes, “What is this? Love your under- privileged bother week or something? (12 Angry Men). Due to his past experiences with young men, he is ready to sentence the defendant to death with weak circumstantial evidence, grows angry as the other jurors question what he refers to as “facts” and claims “You can’t refute facts” (12 Angry Men) As all the Jurors except juror twelve get more and more frustrated by the slowed process, juror three begins to see through his prejudice, and disperses the other jurors interruptions by saying “Be quiet, we’ll all get a turn”(12 Angry Men). It finally becomes clear, he sees similarities with his son he had a falling out with several years ago, and puts this prejudice aside and excepts that the evidence is too circumstantial to convict a kid for murder, and sentence him to death.

Different viewpoints of life will affect how we see the law and how we take situations and manipulate them. In the play 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose. Juror 8 is unique from his fellow jury members. He has many reasonable points and requires discussion about the case before making a final decision. The play demonstrates that Juror 8 wants justice to be served and will fight to see that it is done. He views life as sacred as he stands up for the boy on trial to live.

The literary piece 12 Angry Men is a written play by Reginald Rose. It is a piece that describes the concerns of a jury on a homicide case. The case involves a teenage boy that allegedly killed his father. The adaptation is an excellent work of art that uses the best of the play and Hollywood movies to make an alluring and captivating movie. The literary text is formal in the manner that it is written with a good plot and is intriguing because of the conversations taking place by the jurors. The interesting conversations intertwined with logical statements trying to prove or disprove the doubt of murder makes it much more impressive. The murder and tension of a young boy’s life, helps to pull a reader closer and leads them to be more involved. Causal language is used in the book and lacks the tho’s and shalt’s of Shakespearean work. The stage directions are typically one to two sentences describing many of the motions the characters perform on stage which is longer than some other plays. The play utilizes both first and third person throughout, first person helps the audience to experience from a character's perspective and third person helps as an observer looking in.

After all, they 're about to send an eighteen year-old kid to the electric chair, and Juror #8 doesn 't want to do that without having a conversation first. He brings up certain details of the case that have been bothering him, but the other jurors want him to stop stalling so they can get on with the Guilty verdict. Among the main sources of evidence that the jurors have found compelling include the testimony of two key witnesses. The first was the testimony of the tenant living below the apartment where the defendant’s father had been killed, during which he stated that he heard the defendant say that he would kill the father and that he saw him soon afterwards fleeing the scene of the crime. A juror counters the evidence by stating that the boy claimed he had been at the movies while his father was murdered, but couldn’t remember the name of the movies or who was in them. The second key witness was a woman, who was living across the street, testified that she saw the boy kill his father through the windows of a passing elevated train. Aside from the considerations mentioned, the jurors also took it to be significant that the defendant had, that night, had an argument with his father, which resulted in the boy’s father hitting him twice, and that the boy has an extensive list of prior offenses, including trying to slash another teenager with a knife. Finally, the murder weapon recovered from the scene of

The murder weapon, the knife was greatly debated in the court. The exceptionality of the knife was making the boy appear to be guilty of committing the hideous crime of murdering his own father. In order to prove this juror 8 managed to purchase a similar type of knife from the boy’s neighbourhood shop showing that it was not that unique. Juror 8 tells the jury that he doesn’t want them to accept his hypothesis but it could be a possibility. Upon seeing the exactly similar knife the other jurors are told about the undependability of the prosecution and their evidence. This incident clearly shows that juror 8 just doesn’t want to prove the boy’s innocence but he wants to put a reasonable doubt about the boy’s guilt in the minds of all the other jurors.

The play beings in New York City in a jury room, there are 12 jurors and each of them seem very flustered, not only because its hot and the fan won’t work, but because the trial seems to almost be a waste of time for these twelve people. We learn the case they are dealing with is between a son and his father; the son supposedly stabbed and killed his father. The father and the son live near the slums which is where colored people live. Almost

Set in the 1950’s post depression America and written by world renowned playwright Reginald Rose, Twelve Angry Men has become a much loved classic within the drama playwright genre. With an abundance of audacious themes skillfully displayed throughout the feature length play, Rose has pushed the boundaries of the overly oppressive era from which the play was first published. The two main themes that were explored to great lengths throughout the play were prejudices and stereotypes. These themes were both highlighted through the use of three key literary devices; structure, setting and interactions of characters.

Not much later, he whether or not the old man in the flat below truly could’ve heard “I’m going to kill you!”. Juror 8 realizes that if you take the woman from across the street’s testimony into account, the el train would’ve been passing and it likely would’ve been to loud to hear anything over, especially for an old man. Juror Eight most likely used logic in this case because it’s easy to change someone’s mind with facts; as people enjoy feeling secure in their decisione with something that has been proven.

However, that wasn't the case because juror five stand up and told him that he was born in the slums and not everyone who is born in the sums become criminal’s. When the juror's started talking about the women testimony about seeing the boy stabbing his father. Juror nine points at juror twelve and tell him when you take off your glasses don't they leave marks behind on the sides of your nose and he responded with yes they do. He then makes an assumption that the women wears glasses because he saw those exact marks on the side of her nose in the courtroom. Than he perceives to say that maybe the women thought she saw the boy stabbing his own father at night. she woke up when she heard the scream and he supported his reason by asking the juror wearing the glasses if he sleeps with glasses on and he answer no I don't not one does and he said she wasn't wearing glasses so she doesn't know who she

Twelve Angry Men is a play written by Reginald Rose regarding the jury of a murder trial. It is concerning the verdict on whether the accused is guilty or not guilty of committing murder. The setting of this play enhances the tension amongst the 12 jurors to choose if the accused’ is guilty or not for ending his father’s life with a switch blade. The tension in the play is most predominantly exhibited through the instances of the hot weather during the examination of the case and how it is amplified since they cannot escape the room. The tension is further explored through the culture of the jurors’ and the accused’. Lastly the age differences of the room contribute in