Questions On ' 12 Angry Men '

Recently in my AP English class, we watched The film “Twelve Angry Men”. The film was unique in the fact that it only had one setting, the Jury Room. The film showed no one else but the jurors and the warden, who all remained completely nameless throughout the entire movie and we're only identified by their juror numbers. The jurors were drastically different which I believe added more diversity and made the plot more complex and intriguing to the audience. I don't believe the film had a specific intended audience, I believe that this show can be appreciated by all audiences because it shows that reasonable doubt is a much easier state of mind then certainty.

The movie 12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are on jury duty. The case is on the murder of an old man, and the man's son is the suspect. It starts off with 11 of the men voting that the boy is guilty and 1 voting that the boy is not guilty. Throughout the movie, the men go back and forth restating evidence and information that was giving in court, bringing up several different possibilities, and changing their votes. In the end the men all agree that the boy is not guilty and then go their separate ways. However, there are so many clues and evidence that the boy was the one who killed the old man, he is guilty.

Furthermore, the jurors made significant inferences that assured them the defendant was guilty. An individual makes an inference when they conclude an argument by analyzing evidence and by applying reasoning. For instance, the broker believed that the defendant was capable of being a murderer because he grew up in a bad environment. The broker also claimed that the defendant was guilty because he bought a distinctive switch knife that was identical to the murder weapon. In addition, the messenger and the architect inferred that the witnesses’ testimonies were tangible evidence that proved the defendant did commit the crime. For example, the old man claimed that he heard the defendant yell at his father, “I'm going to kill you.” Before he saw

1. Who do the other jurors think changed his vote? Who actually did write “not guilty”? Juror number 5 but in reality juror number 9 actually changed it.

Using concepts developed by Rafter, was there a justice figure in “12 Angry Men”? How did the plot focus on a typical courtroom film theme: the difficulty of achieving justice?

12 Angry Men is a movie centered around a murder case and the 12 men that are in charge of providing a verdict for a kid charged of first degree murder of his own father. In this movie, the characters have to face a long and grueling procedure of figuring out how to charge the kid after a six day long trial and hours long deliberation between the jurors. The film of 12 Angry Men has several key psychological aspects to it that can be accurately and summarily described.

Core to this belief is the notion that solving ethical dilemmas should be determined by the best option that presents the fewest consequences.

12 Angry Men, a 1957 film directed by Sidney Lumet, based off of a teleplay by Reginald Rose, exemplifies various forms of human communication amongst a small group of men. After the court dispute, the jury had been announced to their destination. Twelve strongly expressive men accumulate into a small group in the court where they will all come to a consensus on whether a boy is to be charged guilty or innocent. The group of twelve men that gathered into this small room, all displayed unique and strong personalities—whether it was a strong aggressive attitude, a strong devoted will, or even a strong mouse personality. Their objective was to all agree towards one single decision—guilty or innocent. If only one person decides to say

Idealized Influence – defined by the values, morals, and ethical principles of a leader and is manifest through behaviours that supress self interest and focus on the good of the collective.

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.

12 Angry Men Summary Fucking hot in the room…say something about the environment Coach -sets the stage for the negotiation by assigning seats based on juror number -said “you fellas can handle this any way you want to, im not going to make any rules”…he should have assumed more of a leadership role from the start -showed signs of becoming a good mediator by redirecting Advertising man’s attention back to the discussion. But then, he said to HF “and we might be able to show you were you were mixed up.” -Coach offered to hand control to GO after GO called Coach a kid…caused a confrontation should have separated people from problem. Took shit too personally -did nothing when Ad man and MSO played TTT…gave up leadership role to HF

Twelve Angry Men is a courtroom drama that was brought to the big screens in 1957. The storyline follows twelve men selected for jury duty, who are trying to reach a verdict on a young man’s trial following the murder of his father. Throughout the debates and voting, the men all reveal their personalities and motives behind their opinions. Because of all the differences of the men, their communication skills lack in some ways and are excellent in others. The three small group communication variables that I found portrayed throughout the movie were prejudice, past experience and preoccupation.

Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, is a play about a jury trying to come to a verdict that will determine whether or not a teenage boy will be put on death row.

Ethics of Decisions Ethics is a system of moral values that people, groups, and cultures abide by. The specific values held as a standard can vary from person to person, but ethics are present in all cultures. There are many approaches to ethics, as described in Ethics in the Fashion Industry by V. Ann Paulins and Julie L. Hillery, which approach we follow, or most closely follow is determined by what we consider to be most important when faced with ethical dilemmas. When making ethical decisions I follow the Fairness Approach.

The 1957 move, 12 Angry Men, takes place in a jurors deliberation room in which twelve jurors must decide the fate of a young man accused of murder (Fonda, Justin, & Rose, 1957). Right away the jurors decide to take a vote in order to unanimously come to a guilty verdict so that they can go home. Davis, the juror played by Henry Fonda, throws everyone off-guard when he states his verdict of not guilty (Fonda et al., 1957). Interesting group dynamics take place as a result of Davis’s verdict, such as persuasion, conformity, and minority influence, how prejudice is displayed in the deliberation room, the evidence of cognitive heuristics, and group polarization.