Review of '12 Angry Men'

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.

A boy may die,” and changes his vote to “not guilty” which is another instance where the boy gets a fair trial. The 12th and 7th juror find it difficult to decide on which way to vote and therefore vote “not guilty” so that the boy is not “sent off to die.” The 12th juror’s lack of a defined and consistent point of view reflects America’s post war materialism. The 4th juror believed that the defendant was guilty for most of the play but then was the 2nd last juror to change his vote and admitted that he had a “reasonable doubt.” Although the audience never finds out whether the defendant was “guilty” or “not guilty” the jurors give the “kid from the slums” an honest trial.

12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are the jury for an 18 year old accused of murder. The judge states in the opening scene that it is a premeditated murder in the 1st degree, if found guilty will automatically receive the death penalty. The 18 year old male is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade, in their home. The prosecutors have several eye witness testimonies, and all of the evidence that they could need to convict the 18 year old male. In the movie it takes place on the hottest day of the year in New York City. There are 12 jurors whom are to decide if the evidence is enough to convict the teen of murder in the first degree. In the first initial vote it is 11-1. The only way that the jurors could turn in

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

When at first Davis was the only not-guilty vote, the other jurors were furious demanding to know why he was the one thing keeping them in the sweltering room. He then explained why he thought the boy might not be guilty in a highly persuasive, logical, and calm manner. Then, after feeling like he was losing an uphill battle, told the men he would concede if he was still standing alone after a re-vote, but thanks to his argument he didn’t stand alone and the fight continued. The men, though maybe not at first, came to respect him for standing alone. He fought for the voiceless and one by one other’s raised theirs for the cause. At the end of the movie, juror number 3 found himself in Davis’ shoes—fighting alone for his cause. Yet, he used anger, emotion, and hate to fuel his argument and thus, was unable to win any of the men back to his side. The boy was saved because of Davis’ rational and levelheaded approach to

The heart of the American Judicial System is the determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused. At the beginning of the play, the jurors all feel that the man is guilty for murdering his father and they all wanted to convict him without carrying out a detailed discussion. The persistence of juror eight, however, plays a significant role in ensuring that the correct and fair verdict is delivered. The judicial system maintains that the defendant does not have an obligation to prove his innocence. The fact is not clear to everyone as Juror 8 reminds Juror 2 about it. The fact is a key element of the judicial system and assists in the process of coming up with a verdict. The defendant is usually innocent until proven guilty. Another element of the judicial system that comes out in the play is for a verdict to stand it must be unanimous. Unanimity ensures that the

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 other jurors get annoyed with Mr. Davis because they do not want to stay and discuss the case and they can’t leave without all of them consenting to one side. But despite all that Mr. Davis starts to look through the evidence presented on the case, and he starts to rationalize and think critically of the presented information. He then starts using warrant which is basically asking questions. He asks about how the evidence given was faulty and wasn’t enough to back the claim that the 18 year old killed his father. Mr. Davis starts to sway the idea that the boy is guilty and he gets the other jurors to start agreeing with him with his claim, rethinking of the evidence, and warrant.

It is clear at this point that at least one of the jurors held a predisposed opinion of the defendant simply because of his socioeconomic background. In this case, a juror’s negative opinion drives him to ignore facts and logic presented to him. He appears to dehumanize people who live in the slums, and clearly expects the boy to be a murderer because of this. He gradually becomes an embodiment of racism and hate, at one point going on a rant and comparing people from the slums to animals. Only after he is presented irrefutable evidence, and is coaxed by other jurors, does Juror 10 change his vote to not guilty.

Twelve Angry Men, a play by Reginald Rose, follows the plot of twelve jurors in a courthouse jury room. They are attempting to decide on a verdict for a 16 year old boy on trial for the murder of his father. It is one of the hottest years on record in New York and these jurors just want the case to be over. They all decide on leaving the boy guilty except for one, juror eight. He follows through on the honesty that is supposed to be shown in the judicial system, but not like juror ten who uses prejudice to persuade the other jurors to reach the verdict of guilty.

12 Angry Men depicts twelve jurors deliberating on the life of a young man accused of murdering his father. In the beginning, Juror 8 (Henry Fonda) stands alone against eleven other jurors with the sole plea of not guilty. Throughout the film, Juror 8 brings other jurors to his opinion with the use of multiple argumentative tactics. More and more jurors join the side of Juror 8 until just one juror remains with a plea of guilty. Eventually, Juror 3 (Lee J. Cobb) succumbs to an emotional breakdown and pleads not guilty, saving the defendants life.

In the movie, the jury has to come to a unanimous decision on the boy’s innocence or guilt as stated by the judge in the beginning of the film and that any decision that is not unanimous will result in a hung jury where they will most likely schedule for a retrial. While most of the characters of the jury seem adamant about the eventual result of the kid and how his fate should pan out, juror number 8 decides that he is going to vote for not guilty in order to have a reasonable discussion about the trial instead of immediately sending the defendant to the chair to be executed. This is met by the initial outrage of the group at the thought of someone going against what was the norm of the group, which is very uncommon for someone to do especially in a murder trial where people tend to be very opinionated and set in stone about their ideas. This unflinching and unresolving attitude is shown throughout the movie as juror number 8 slowly and methodically uses both central and peripheral route persuasion to

Twelve Angry Men is set during a scorching summer day in New York City, where twelve men (Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Edward Binns, Jack Warden, Henry Fonda, Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley, George Voskovec, and Robert Webber) sit on the jury and deliberate the outcome of a murder trial. The defendant is an eighteen-year-old boy who is accused of murdering his abusive father and tried for first-degree murder. Eager to escape the heat and to attend to other matters, eleven of the twelve men cast their vote as guilty, but juror eight does not. Many believe that the boy is capable of murder because the “slums are a breeding ground for criminals.” However, juror eight begins to take apart the prosecution’s case,

According the five Methods for Influencing Other Group Members - use of reason, assertiveness, coalition building, higher values, and bargaining - when Juror Eight said: “we are talking about somebody life here, we can’t just decide within five minutes, suppose we are wrong”, he used the youth human-being life’s important and the danger of a false decision as good reasons to force other jurors in analyzing the facts carefully. He then talks about the boy’s backgrounds for appealing to logic and rational thinking of other jurors. Juror Three was overt prejudice, hostility, and used “assertiveness” to influence the other ten jurors of jury provided an antagonist for juror Eight. Juror eight used “coalition building” method to seek alignment with other group members. He never says that he believes the defendant is innocent but his mantra throughout the movie was “it’s possible!” referring to the reasonable doubt, which he convinced others’ thought. Juror Eight continued to appeal other eleven juror’s higher values by repeatedly reinforcing their moral and judicial obligation to convict only if there was no reasonable doubt. He challenged each juror to look at the facts more thoughtfully. “Bargaining” is offering an instrument exchange. Juror 8 used this method when he said: “I want to call for another vote… If there are 11 votes for guilty, I won’t stand alone… But if anyone votes not guilty, we stay here and talk it out.”

12 Angry Men is a 1957 American courtroom drama film adapted from a teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose. Written and co-produced by Rose himself and directed by Sidney Lumet, this trial film tells the story of a jury made up of 12 men as they deliberate the guilt or acquittal of a defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt, forcing the jurors to question their morals and values. In the United States, a verdict in most criminal trials by jury must be unanimous. The film is notable for its almost exclusive use of one set: out of 96 minutes of run time, only three minutes take place outside of the jury room.