The Film Twelve Angry Men Which Was Produced In 1957, Demonstrates

This case was one of truth and justice. It becomes evident when the Juror 9 says to Juror 10. ‘Do you think you have a monopoly on truth?' [Juror 9, page 8] The fact is, nobody really knows what the truth is, and at the end of the play, still nobody does. The boy may have been guilty, but as Juror 8 pointed out, who were they to make that assumption? Most of the Jurors had taken for granted that what the prosecution had told them was the truth. Through much discussion the Jurors realised that this may

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.

To begin, Juror Eight is motivated by his thirst to know the truth about a situation. Juror Eight is focused on finding the truth of the case and refuses to give up until he persuades all of the other jurors that the boy is innocent. In Act I the jurors take a vote to see whether or not they feel that the boy is guilty or not; all of the jurors vote guilty except Juror Eight, merely because he feels the group should discuss the case further. In Act I page 15 Juror Three states, ¨… I want to talk for a while. Look-- this boy's been kicked around all his life. You know---living in a slum… i think maybe we owe him a few words.¨. This act shows his desire to contemplate important decisions rather than make a choice without thinking.

Finally, Juror 8 had a huge impact on this story. Juror 8 was very insightful with his opinions and evidence. He gave himself the ability to change the minds of eleven men and save the innocent life of one. Juror 8 was the only man out of 12 who decided to look deeply into the murder case and find little pieces of evidence that everyone else seemed to miss and used that to prove his points. For example, no one would have thought about how the woman who claimed she saw the murder from across the street may have not had perfect vision. Juror 8 found little details to prove that, like how she had marks from her glasses and may not have been wearing them when she looked outside. Not even the lawyers had thought about that and most little things like that were why the young boy was almost sent to his death. Juror 8 was a true hero and stood up to his own opinion and points even when others didn’t agree with him.

The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in

Juror eight is an unbiased man only seeking justice and fairness from this trial. He shows this when he says “I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.” Furthermore, juror eight displays his prejudiced personality through the use of this quote. However, other characters, such as juror three, are appalled by juror eight’s beliefs and only see that the boy is undoubtedly guilty because of his criminal record and testimonies against him.

The classic 1957 movie 12 Angry Men delves in to a panel of twelve jurors who are deciding the life or death fate of an eighteen year old italian boy accused of stabbing his father to death. The twelve men selected as jurors are a diverse group, each coming to the table with their own socioeconomic backgrounds, personal experiences, prejudice’s, and all of this plays a role in the jurors attitudes and/or misconceptions of the accused young man. How each of the jurors, all but Juror Eight played by Henry Fonda, experiences and personalities impact their original vote of guilty is clear at the beginning of the movie with the first vote. However, from the start, Juror Eight displays confidence, and demonstrates leadership abilities utilizing

First, Juror 8 stood his ground. In the beginning the Foreman called for a vote and eleven men raised their hand for guilty while Juror 8 raised his hand for not guilty. “There were eleven votes for guilty. It's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” said Juror 8 for justifying his actions. Later, when the other jurors were trying to convince Juror 8, he was quick with his arguments. To Juror 2 he said, “Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn’t have to open his mouth. That’s in the constitution. You’ve heard of it.” To Juror 10 he said, “You don’t believe the boy. How come you believe the woman? She’s one of “them” too, isn’t she?” When Juror 6 brought up the motive for the murder, Juror 8 remarked with, “…I

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.

Juror No. 8 wasn’t trying to defend the boy he was just doing his job, because of that he slowly became a hero without knowing it. Juror No. 8 could of went and decide to choose guilty but he didn’t because he knows it wouldn’t be right not even sharing a thought about it. He continued to convince all eleven jurors that their was reasonable doubt and that the boy was

Juror 8, tries to convince the other Jurors that the kid is not guilty by explaining to them the evidence she believes is fake. He starts talking about the possible ways that people could have lied to make it seem so real. Slowly and slowly, the Juror, starts convincing two other jurors that the boy is innocent. Afterwards, they decide to do another count, in which two

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,

When the Eighth Juror tried to open the discussion and give the boy a fair trial, he created the whole story. The entire play would not have even occurred if not for the Eighth Juror. At the start, all of the jurors wanted to go home. Several even talk about how they want to “get this over with” (Rose 7). So, all jurors were willing to vote as quickly as possible even if it meant that the defendant may not get the fairest hearing. But, the eighth was not willing to allow this because he wanted a fair trial. So, without the Eighth Juror, would there even be a story to tell? Most would think not. Juror Eight says many things that make the rest of the jury think a lot about. For instance, he states, “It’s not easy to identify a voice” (Rose 32). By bringing up this valid reasoning, he added to the story and gave the boy a fair chance by questioning whether the story of everybody involved in the case is definitely true. Furthermore, if the Eighth Juror had not promoted the discussion of this boy’s case, everyone would have voted guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But, there was reasonable doubt from Juror Eight, as

But that statement made the third juror made saying he’d kill the 8th juror, but earlier in the play that’s exactly what the boy said to his father hours before the killing, and to the audience it shows how things can be used as an exaggeration. So, once that happens the votes are tied. Juror 8 now breaks apart the fact that the boy couldn’t remember the movies he supposedly saw, but says in that kind of state of trauma it could be difficult. They also discuss how the murderer used a switchblade the wrong way, and that there was no way that the boy would use it the wrong was as he was very experienced. Juror 8 goes on and sees if it was also actually possibly for the other witness (the woman) to actually see the murder. They test it as well and find it also highly unlikely that she put on her glasses in time enough for her to see. So, all that’s left on the “guilty” verdict is 10 and 8, and 10 changes his verdict to “not guilty” after being quickly shut down about his comments. So, now that only 8 is left, they have a somewhat difficult time convincing him, but he does change his verdict to “not guilty”. The story ends with the rain stopping and the knife still sticking in the

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.”