Essay on Movie: Twelve Angry Men

uncomfortable room have to discuss a life and death case about a boy that is accused or killing

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.

12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a twisting story where a son is accussed of stabbing his father to death. Twelve strangers are told to listen to this court case and are then stuck in a small, hot room where they are told to decide on a verdict, whether or not the kid lives or dies. The jury finally decides on the verdict of : Not Guilty. Three major facts that influence the juries agreement that the accussed is not guilty include doubts of the murder weapon, doubts of the old man’s testimony, and doubts of the lady across the street’s testimony.

During the trial there were debates on how both children were not in control of their actions which meant that they couldn’t be held responsible for their actions. Many psychiatrists had tried to find the reason that made the two boys’ create such a horrific crime. One forensic psychiatrist stated that examining

It is the juror's responsibility to prove the boy guilty or not. Many of these jurors applied their biases to the way the boy grew up and was treated throughout his life. They have created false accusations that are not necessarily accurate. They argue that teenagers his age have no sense of morality or respect for their elders. Which could be a justifiable reasoning for the murder of his own father. Juror Three appears to be prejudiced towards the boy due to the fact that his own son resented him and moved out. It is not uncommon to develop an explicit bias after generalizing impressions from a personal experience and applying that to all groups of that kind such as age, religion, etc. As Juror Eight votes not guilty during a vote, the third juror becomes infuriated and disagrees while ranting about how the defendant is completely guilty due to evidence. Two different categories came into play as Juror Three expressed his feelings about his own son relating to the boy on

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.

One piece of evidence that proves the boy’s innocence is the height of the father. This takes an effect on the evidence against the boy because he is 6 inches shorter than his father was. So it would have been harder for the boy to stab the dad it would of taking

14 year old Johnny Cade has killed young Bob. The verdict should be charged not guilty. The other fellow Jury members and myself believe the same. To prove this matter, we have collected data. This data reveals that it was a justified homicide.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, Your Honor, a terrible crime has been committed. Around five months ago, an aeroplane crashed into an abandoned island. This plane was carrying children and the only adults were the pilot and copilot who died on the scene. The children that survived created a society that kept them alive for two months, give or take a few weeks. They established a society where everyone had a place; a society that was ruled by a single chief, which was one of the elder boys. This boy tried to the best of his ability to keep everyone safe and keep peace among all the children. Ladies and Gentlemen, not all of the boys survived, some were killed by their fellow island mates. One of these boys was named Simon. Simon was killed

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.

The guilty side argued mainly off of emotions and in some cases intimidation. The guilty argued how an eyewitness saw the boy do it, though she was 60ft away from the scene without glasses and seeing through a train cart window. The rebuttal was the facts that this is not possible under the conditions. The response though was an eyewitness is all that matters to me. The response made a juror go to the other side to not-guilty. The flaws with the guilty sides were in biases and the human conditions of wanting to have someone put down. Man is barbaric in nature, though we can suppress our inner thoughts some choose not to and we can see this with the last juror who only wanted to boy put down due to his hard heart. At the last bit of the film,

After the second vote we found that only 10 of the 12 jurors found the teenager guilty. As the movie progresses it switches to a split decision between the juror members. Finally towards the end of the film it becomes a unanimous decision of finding the teenage boy not

An individual's past experiences can have an incredible impact on the way they think and behave for years to come. So, the past have a significant impact on an individual. In my own life, I have had past experiences that have affected me to be the person I am today. One example is, whenever I walked through the downtown part of Edmonton and I noticed a lot of homeless people lying around on the streets. I felt so bad for those poor people that didn’t have a place to live. They appreciate anything and everything they get. This really effects me and teaches me to be more grateful in life. And appreciate everything I have. In the play the 12 Angry Men, jurors 3, 5, and 11 prove that their experiences has affected who they are. I believe that juror 3’s family issues such as his problems with his son has affected him to become an aggressive man. Additionally, juror 5 has had a background of living in a slum all his life. Therefore, he tries to prove that not all people living in slums are criminals. Lastly, juror 11 struggles with others judging him because he is a European Refugee. This affected him by making him feel unconfident about himself and feels that the others jurors don't take his opinion too seriously.

will save the boy life and at the same time his company from losing money or profit.

To conclude, if you follow Mill’s utilitarianism you would probably think it’s right to kill the boy because it’s useful for everyone involved. If you follow Kant’s duty ethics, you would think it’s not right to kill the boy because the boy would be used just for the benefits of others. Personally, I think they should wait for the boy to die instead of killing of him.