Twelve Angry Men

You were accused of premeditated homicide. Now, your fate is put into the hands of 12 angry men. In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a 16 year old kid is accused of killing his own father. He is tried by the prosecution; a jury will then decide on a verdict that will decide his fate. While some of these jurors don’t care about the case or are blinded by prejudice, the 11th Juror is not.

Twelve angry men by Reginald Rose is an intriguing play that explores the idea of personal experience affecting ones decision. Indeed Rose shows that decision-making is based on personal experiences. This is evident in the play when the 3rd Juror’s personal experience with his own son influences his decision and as a result he votes for guilty, the 9th Jurors old age becomes one of the greatest factors which influences his judgement of the boy ; when the 5th Jurors personal experience in a slum causes further doubts to form in his mind It is clear throughout the play that personal

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

Inside a room where life or death decisions are made, twelve men sit with wandering thoughts. The made up minds of some jurors are to send a boy to his death without a second thought, but one other juror may change that. Inside of the play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose, Juror 8 has the persuasive evidence to change the minds of his fellow Jurors and save a boy from his execution. The other Juror’s seem like they won’t budge with their mind set on the decision of guilty, but after Juror 8 proves his thoughts on the decision of innocent, he may just be able to save a young life.

The group initially started with a process of arriving at a decision by voting and there was a groupthink causing

Both testimonies claim that the boy is guilty of the murder, and that he was seen and heard in the act. Even with these testimonies, the claims don’t always line up with the evidence. Despite this fact, if the jury wanted to deem the boy guilty regardless of sufficient evidence, they could have. The second problem is the moral obligation and responsibility that the jurors of the jury possess. In the play, all but one juror out of the twelve voted guilty.

* The most influential individuals in the group were the juror who was very biased against the 18 year old boy, who’s trailed for murder. That juror discussed his thoughts in regards to a situation where

The classic movie 12 Angry Men opens with clips of a courthouse, ultimately panning to a specific court room where an 18-year-old boy is on trial for killing his father. Despite the case being the central point which the story revolves around, the movie isn’t about the boy or even his father. The movie is about the 12 jurors who are in charge of the boy’s fate. If they decide he is guilty, he is sentenced to the death penalty, which meant death by the electric chair.

All the men settle down, as the "forming stage" begins with a consensus that this case has been pre-decided as a guilty verdict. Most men in the room mutually agree into the group process of the "storming stage". During the dialogue, the jurors began to take roles as a unanimous vote must be completed before returning. Nearly all juror's opinion points towards a guilty verdict, this symptom is the first groupthink term known as "Illusion of unanimity". A contradiction to this assumed general idea occurred as juror eight votes not guilty. Juror number eight displays another groupthink theory; his opposing vote, is later based on; "Belief in inherent morality". This symptom is the belief in the righteousness above conformity despite the situation. Conflict arises as the "norming stage" unfolds, as the other eleven men attempt to persuade that the boy is without a doubt guilty. A scene develops that manifest the groupthink issue of, "Stereotyped

Informative social influence is also apparent in “Twelve Angry Men”. Juror number twelve, a well-dressed, advertising businessman for “Rice Pops” exhibits a character that is easily-swayed by convincing arguments from both sides. He first changes his vote from guilty to not guilty after juror number five’s demonstration with the switchblade only to change his vote again after he is overwhelmed with “evidence that he is unable to arrange in order.” His inability to explain his reasons for his decisions to change his votes demonstrates the complication of the situation as well as his own feelings of incompetency (Myers, Spencer, & Jordan, 2009). Instead, juror number twelve relies on the arguments of other jurors and changes his votes according to the credibility of other’s judgments.

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 story that takes place during summer in a blazing hot jury room, filled with twelve hot-tempered men, is the defendant really guilty? In 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, a young boy is accused of killing his own father ruthlessly with a knife. It is now the duty of the twelve jurors to corroborate and come up with a fair verdict. Some jurors uses emotion to deal with the case, while others uses logic and provided strong evidence to support their claim. Juror Four and Juror Eight are similar in the way that they are both open-minded, take the trial seriously, and they also uses logic to analyze problems.

Twelve Angry Men is about a jury who must decide the fate of an 18 year old boy who allegedly killed his father. The jury must determine a verdict of guilty beyond any reasonable doubt and not guilty. A guilty verdict would mean that the accused would receive the death penalty. After a day of deliberation and many votes, they came up with the verdict of not guilty. I believe they achieved their overall goal of coming up with a verdict they were all able to agree with. It seems there were some individual personal short term goals that were not met. One being that the one juror was not able to go to the baseball game. Another was that a juror was not able to take out the anger he had towards his son on the son accused of killing his

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.

The 1957 movie version of 12 Angry Men, brings twelve people together with different personalities and experiences to discuss the fate of a young boy that allegedly killed his father. At the very beginning, many agree that the boy is guilty except for one man. Juror #8 votes not guilty and pushes to have the evidence talked through. After reviewing all the evidence carefully, the tables turned from guilty to not guilty. Each juror brought different experiences and personalities to the jury room. The two that were forceful with their opinions and their reasonings to decide either way we're jurors #8 and #3.