The Jury System In The Film Twelve Angry Men

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

Indeed, Juror 3 and 8 have individual outlooks on the case, but I believe that even between these two diverse people, there are is one strong similarity, and that would have to be persistency. In the whole play, the strongest collisions of disputes were between Juror 3 and 8. Their conflicting perspectives and powerful determinations were what drove the decision of the fate of the accused. In general, these two jurors have strong point of views on how the boy should be treated and why. Even with this similarity, they still use their persistency in diverse

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

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.

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.

Juror Eight seems to be the opposite, feeling sympathetic for the boy because of his poor upbringing. He demands to overview the case evidence given by the old man and the old woman, seeing as there is plausible doubt in the details. He refuses to let Juror Three’s accusations of him and the defendant upset him instead he proceeds to convince the remaining jurors that the boy is not guilty. The race of the characters are never announced because the play is supposed to be interpreted in any way the reader wants to see it. Juror Eight is clearly more intelligent than Juror Three considering Three sticks to his prejudices and does not allow the other jurors to sway his mind. After defending his side throughout the duration of the play, Jurors Four and Three begin to feel pressured. They end up giving in to the other jurors at towards the end of the play as they communicatively persuade a stubborn

The film “12 Angry Men” gives the audience insight as to how jury deliberations work. The film follows 12 jurors throughout the process of finding the defendant’s sentencing. The jury is overseeing a case surrounding a young boy who is charged with the murder of his father. It was interesting to see the process of this paired with the way each character’s vote had an effect on each of the other juror’s decisions. The film “12 Angry Men” portrays a realistic fluctuation of stances in a room of jurors as a whole and individually based upon the prior experiences and ethics of each juror.

The most obvious examples from the movie come from the display of various social factors that influence the jury’s behavior, as shown in specific examples of prejudice, conformity, and obedience. Prejudice is a biased opinion about a group stemming from an unfair general discrimination. This is most highly evidenced by the action of the bigoted juror 10. In the beginning of the movie he specifically states, “You’re not going to tell us that we’re supposed to believe him,

Therefore, other jurors believe that after his acts of anger, he is over the top and their trust in his thoughts begins to waver. Regardless of the majorities vote, juror three’s vote remains unchanged from guilty because of his highly opinionated attitude and prejudiced ways. Juror eight’s bigoted traits and statements eventually cause all the other jurors to leave him for juror eight’s

From their first introduction, it is obvious that jurors 3 and 10 stand out from their negativity toward the case, stemming from their prejudice against the accused boy. Whilst Rose has juror 10’s thoughts apparent from the beginning – “the kids who crawl outa those places (slums) are real trash” – it is only toward the finale that we see 10’s true sinister point of view – “they are–wild animals”, “they’re violent, they’re vicious, they’re ignorant, and they will cut us up”. Whilst juror 3 shares a similar stance, his prejudice targets the youth over slum people. As it is revealed that he has had an inconvenient history with his son, 3 uses the trial as revenge on him, thinking all kids are the same, and placing himself in the position of the murdered father, as he eventually “[could] feel that knife goin’ in”. As mentioned by juror 8, the moral compass, “it’s very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this”, bringing attention to a recurringly problem with the validity of the justice system. “Prejudice obscures the

The appropriate careful and sincere discussion in regards to the trial is participated in by most, however, other are unable to dispose their own personal opinions. Jurors 8, 9, 11 and 4 for the most part show more strongly than the others, a logical point of view. These jurors take their duties very seriously and make their decisions based on the dissection of the evidence give. Juror 11 demonstrates this logic through the comment “we have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict.” This reasonable stance is used in Rose’s construction to align the audience with these Jurors as they value both human life and the American court system. These qualities are conveyed as important by Rose through the creation of this play. Conversely Jurors

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

Juror 4 is able to remain calm and composed throughout the most stressful of situations. While Juror 10 exhibits racial outbursts; “They get drunk”, “That's the way they are!”, “VIOLENT!”, “These people are dangerous. They're wild. Listen to me. Listen.” Juror 4 sat through this entire scene without saying a word. It is only until Juror 10’s monologue is finished that Juror 4 speaks, calmly asking Juror 10 to “Shut [his] filthy mouth.” Juror 4 never discredits or implies anything towards the defendant and is always careful of what he says. After Juror 10’s tirade, Juror 4 tries to soften the impact created by 10; “Slums are potential breeding grounds for criminals.” He never attacks or hypes the situation at hand. He draws around ‘potential’ possibilities. Juror 4 initially had his doubts at the start of the case but was the only character that overcame his predisposition based on the analysis of facts and evidence. Rose’s character and only this character had the intelligence, confidence and persistence to keep his head in the tense moment Juror 10 created.

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.”