The Classic 1957 Movie 12 Angry Men Delves In To A Panel

Similarly ,In Twelve Angry Men Juror 8 is a smart and moral juror who is willing to stand against all the other jurors for what he thinks is right. He is the main protagonist who believes a boy accused with murdering his father deserves a discussion prior to a guilty verdict. Although all the other jurors initially voted guilty, juror 8 believed that the jurors should not “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”(Juror 8, 12). Throughout the play Juror 8 combats the pressure from the other Jurors to just vote guilty and manages to convince his fellow Jurors one by one that there in fact is “reasonable doubt”(Judge, 6) and convinces them to arrive at a “not guilty”(Juror 3, 72) verdict. Reginald Rose extols Juror 8’s pursuit of justice through his success. Not only did Juror 8 stand by his principles and have the courage to stand against all the other Jurors, he also had the wits to convince his fellow jurors to change their verdict. Through these actions Juror 8 brings justice to the courts of New York city saving the life of a young boy.

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.

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.

In ‘Twelve Angry Men’, written by Reginald Rose, juror three sees his son as the alleged and cannot wait to punish him, however, the prejudice he has against the alleged criminal urges juror three to take action as quickly as possible and votes a persistent ‘guilty’ verdict. Throughout the play, juror three is seen as an old, bitter man who makes his decisions based on his son and not his own conscience. When he is a part of the jury, he has the chance to be fair and reasonable, which he passes up the opportunity. He “[feels] that knife going in” when he talks about his son and how he finds a similarity in both the

Angry! Hostile!” This causes him to not listen to the other jurors opinions and block out any idea of the defendant being innocent. His prejudice is further understood when he says “this kid is guilty. He’s got to burn. We’re letting him slip through our fingers here.” Juror #3 is only able to see the young boy on trial as a symbol of his own son and is therefore unable to look past his own anger towards his son and see the case for what it really is. It is only through the help of juror #8 does juror #3 finally let go of his personal prejudice and sees the truth about the case and changes his vote to not guilty.

They discussed the switchblade being an uncommon blade and Juror No. 8 demonstrated them wrong by purchasing precisely the same one only two squares from the kid's home. From this Juror No. 8 is a hero because he showed them that anything could of happen even if the chances were low, anything could of happened. Additionally demonstrating that the old man had lied in court saying that it was precisely 5 seconds however as they reproduce the scene, it took them around 43 seconds. Thus, the old man couldn’t of heard kid say, “Im going to kill you” or a body hitting the floor with the el-train passing through. He also mentioned that how could the lady across the apartment could of seen the stabbing when she didn’t even have her glasses on.

Juror Eight questions Juror Three, “...If the boy bought the knife to use it on his father, how come he showed what was going to be the murder weapon to three friends of his just a couple of hours before the killing?” (Rose 24). Juror Eight uses “if” to imply that he does not believe that the boy bought the knife to use it on his father and that he is analyzing why he would buy the knife to use it on his father. “How come” is used to insinuate the question of why the boy would show his friends what was going to be his murder weapon a few hours later. He is analyzing the boy’s motives to show his friends his supposed murder weapon and how it’s unfeasible and plain idiotic to do so.

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 prosecutor demonstrates that the knife is considered as "one-of-a-kind" and since the kid used the knife, there is to a lesser extent a chance that a similar knife was utilized. The kid expressed that the knife cut through his pocket and dropped out. Juror eight shows there was a possible path for the kid to lose the knife and that another person wounded his dad with an alternate knife. The other 11 members of the jury didn't trust Juror eight since they have chosen that the knife was distinctive and had significance. Later on, Juror eight stood up, reached into his pocket and took out a knife. At the point when Juror eight took out the knife, he demonstrated that the knife was exactly like the same knife the kid claimed that he had

Twelve Men are on jury duty. The judge explains to them the case, a case where supposedly a son murdered his father. It seems obvious that the boy did it, and they all vote guilty; besides, Juror 8. He points out some things that didn’t particularly set well with him, but of course all the other jurors just tell him to give it up so they can do other things. So, he for the foreman to take a vote that he’ll stay out, and if everyone votes guilty; then, it’s over and he’ll vote guilty, but another juror votes not guilty. So, they argue for awhile until a point is brought up that the knife the murderer used was unique, and that only the boy could have used it, but that was proven false when Juror 8 pulls out an exact copy of it. After that another

317), drawing you in with each of the 12 men's take on the evidence they were presented with during the trial. The accused murderer, a young man on trail for stabbing his father to death, is seen only briefly, as the film focusses on the conflict between the 12 jurors, the titular 12 angry men, as they debate what verdict to deliver, knowing the stacks are literally life and death, as a guilty verdict will result in the death penalty. The 12 men, identified only by their juror numbers and occupations, assemble in a bare, uncomfortable jury room and quickly establish that most are prepared to render a guilty verdict and are eager to leave. But Fonda’s Juror 8 appeals for proper deliberation of reasonable doubt with a young man’s life in their hands. The men begin stating their arguments, debating the evidence presented during the trial and try to convince one another of the accused’s guilt or

Since juror number 8 didn’t agree with the rest of the jurors, he had to support his claim with the evidence that was presented. He talked about the evidence that was collected from the crime. Some of the evidence is strong and makes sense. Juror number 8 made several good points and one of them was that it was not possible for the old man to have heard the yell. The juror claimed that the old man had poor hearing and there was a train that passed by the house around the same time the killing occurred. Therefore, how was it possible for the yell to have been heard? This evidence relates to the rest of the evidence collected. The old man was not a good witness to the case and so the juror had to continue to state the rest of the evidence in order to convince the other men that the boy was not guilty. Another strong point that the writer made in this film is the physical evidence that was used in the case. There was not much

In the movie of 12 Angry Men, a group of jurors must decide the fate of an inner-city boy, who is charged with killing his father. The case should have been a slam dunk, yet one man (Juror No. 8) in the initial vote cast reasonable doubt over the evidence of the trial. While deliberating their verdict, the details are revealed. Subsequently, the jurors slowly changed their vote to innocent on the basis of doubt. Despite their duty to separate personal matters from the facts, the jurors complicate their decisions with stereotypes, past experiences, and opinions. Although they were faced with different perspectives, the men came together to a unanimous consensus.

The movie 12 Angry Men is a depiction of a jury deliberation in the 1950’s involving the trial of a teenager that is accused of murdering his father. These twelve men were brought together by a random selection process to make a unanimous decision. In the beginning, all jurors believed the boy to be guilty without a doubt, except for one. Juror 8 continues to raise questions pertaining to the facts presented, while slowly convincing the other jurors to take another look before determining the boy’s fate. Many people would say that their purpose was to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant, but in reality they have no way of knowing if the teen is innocent; in the end, all they can have is reasonable doubt.

Juror #8 was much more successful with his critical thinking since the beginning of the movie. He was the only one of the jurors that voted not guilty. He expressed that “it’s not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first” when he is being