My Papers

Since there are only two outcomes in the minds of the court officials, they rush to conclusions. The girls’ influence on the court officials puts the decisions in their favor, leading the villagers to either confess to witchcraft or be hanged. Danforth’s statement is one that guides the rest of the novel. The idea that one must either be with the court or against it leads to all of the problems in Salem. The forced choice from two alternatives creates tension, fear, and false accusations in the community.

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

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.

The jurors are transformed by the process of deliberating. Eleven men voted guilty because of their prejudices, fears, laziness and insecurities, but they are eventually persuaded by reason to give up these limiting beliefs, to see the potential in the facts, and to find justice. The critical turning points in the jury votes occur, not when there is passion and anger, but when there is reasoned discussion, as the rational Juror 8 triumphs over the prejudices of his fellow jurors. The facts of the case do not change, but the jurors come to see the facts differently, and change by the process they go through. Despite the hostility and tension created in this process, the twelve men end up reconciled, and justice is done.

It was interesting to see the large differences in each juror’s lives. Every jury is eclectic because it is made up of very different people with very different family lives. For example, Juror #3 seems to be a well educated and well off man as he was wearing suspenders and a dress shirt. However, Juror #7 was a young man who seemed fairly uneducated and fairly poor because he dressed in a sweatsuit and used improper language. It was very interesting to see these different personalities clash. In the beginning when the men are all on the same page that the defendant is guilty except one, the men generally more relaxed (except for Juror #3).However, as more of the men start to explain their reasonings for seeing reasonable doubt, tension is prevalent in the room. The men who vote guilty are rallying up against the people who voted not guilty. The feeling of the room switches again as most jurors decide the defendant is guilty. That being said, Juror #3 creates a lot of tension in the room throughout the film due to the the fact that he yells at anyone who disagrees with him because he is unwilling to hear their opinions. For example, while one man is explaining why he thinks there is reasonable doubt, juror #3 decides to start a game of tic tac toe. This is very interesting because he is ready to send the defendant to his deathbed

At this point, the presence of a strong governing body could have brought a more peaceful solution and calmed the growing fear of the people. Instead, the judges allowed the theatrics in the courtroom and the situation spun quickly out of control. This is an example of how mob psychology affected the outcome of these trials. The peoples’ fears were compounded by the girls’ emotional out bursts, the religious view points being expressed at this time and growing distrust of people seen as different from themselves. There was no governing body, civil or religious, that was willing or able to control public response. On the contrary, the establishment of Court of Oyer and Terminer, in May of 1692, brought a new level of seriousness. (Norton 194) Grand and petty juries were formed, witnesses were called in and the charades escaladed.

In the drama “Twelve Angry Men’’ by Reginald Rose, there are twelve juror’s debating their opinions on a murder case. Even though all jurors were present during court and heard the same thing each of them has their own presupposition on democracy by which they portray using various phrases and actions. Throughout the drama the jurors debate and rebuttal opinions on the case.

• FAR Part 12 will not be used and a notice to perspective offerors that the Government does not intend to use Part 12 for the acquisition.

When a man stands up for his beliefs despite their unpopularity, he exemplifies great bravery. While Bertram Cates may not have been the most brave man when the trial began, he later addresses the courtroom by saying, “I feel I am… I have been convicted of violating an unjust law. I will continue in the future, as I have in the past, to oppose this law in any way I can,” (115). Bert bravely states his point of view in his speech and makes it clear that he stands behind Darwinism. While picking the jury members, Drummond “[objects] to all [the] ‘Colonel’ talk,” (42) because he believes it interferes with a fair trial. In addition to annoying Brady, Drummond objects to the title because he is brave enough to stand up to what he thinks is unjust. On a more general note, Drummond had the bravery to go to Hillsboro as the defense attorney for Bert even though winning the case was nearly impossible and there was no pay. Although their opinions were not popular in the play, Bert and Drummond show great bravery by standing up for

The trials were a means to maintain the strict social hierarchy. A major source of social tension and conflict was caused by the farmers. The farmers outside town petitioned for their own minister and for their own house of worship. They had two reasons for their requests. One, they were far from town, and two they were

Twelve Angry Men is a play that shows the workings of the American Justice System. The play is a celebration of the judicial system, and the main theme of the play is the triumph and the fragility of justice. The defendant’s fate is on the hand of the jurors as the man is accused of a serious offense which is murder. The purpose of the essay is to show the role that the plot, characters and the conflicts among the jurors support the theme of justice. Each juror had an initial verdict when the play begins but as events unfold and conflicts and agreements are reached the final and fair verdict is presented.

The first problem the community had to fix was that of their charter because without a charter there can’t be no court. As Norton, Wilson, and Cloyce explain, William Phips and Increase Mather go to London to ask for the new charter he created to be accepted by the new King; which is accepted (Norton p. 11 , Wilson p. 6, Cloyce: part 1). The other circumstance was the Salem Witch Trials in which a court was issued where the accused had trials, and where several evidence were considered to know if the accused were guilty and if they should be hanged. All Norton, Wilson, and Cloyce, explain how because more upper class people started to be named the judges started to question whether the girls were telling the truth (Norton p. 11, Wilson p. 10, Cloyce: part 2). At the end, this problem was resolved because they came to the conclusion that the devil was taking upon the

“He soon realizes that he made mistakes” and learned what do what’s right by it. You owe it to yourself,” he lectures his older son Lyons (Pg.18). Everything he’s doing to prove that he understands his responsibilities is good, but he says something that will make you wonder? For example “Troy jokingly claims he keeps the devil away by paying him ten dollars a month, that's not a normal thing to say, but he’s also a “god-loving man doing the best he can do to provide for his

Several pairs of eyes trail the prosecutor as he puts forth his reasons as to why the defendant should be guilty. Several pairs of ears listen intently in a trance like mode, also cautious of every detail. The prosecutor presents the facts with great gusto, painting a picture of the defendant in a bad light. Once he is done, the defendant’s lawyer takes the stage and he too, with great effort, puts forth reasons as to why his client is innocent. In the end, when everything is said and done and it time for the verdict, only one voice answers to the court clerk out of the 12 men and women. These 12 people are the jurymen and they play an equally important role as the lawyers and judges of a court trial. In fact, a jury is the sole decider, based

The room in which the men are sitting and debating the case has a table with each of the men sitting around it. Jury member number one, who sits at the head of the