Twelve Jurors In The Film 12 Angry Men

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.

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.

In a crowded jury room in downtown New York, opinions collide as discussion about the innocence of a young boy is decided. The dark and foreboding storm clouds that hang over the heads of the jurors are beginning to lift as time progresses and new facts are presented. One juror is not happy about this stay of execution and is holding fast his opinion of guilty. Juror three, the president of his business, refuses to alter his vote or opinion in any way. Still haunted by his own son, juror three verbally assaults the group with a forceful tone and a taciturn attitude. One of twelve, Reginald Rose created them all from the same pen and ink, and they could all be no more different.

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.

In the movie 12 Angry Men, the jurors are set in a hot jury room while they are trying to determine the verdict of a young man who is accused of committing a murder. The jurors all explain why they think the accused is guilty or not guilty. Throughout the movie they are debating back and forth and the reader begins to realize that even though the jurors should try to not let bias cloud their judgement, the majority of the jurors are blinded by bias. The viewer can also see that the jurors have their own distinguishable personalities. Their personalities intertwine with each other to demonstrate how the jury system is flawed, but that is what makes it work.

One may think of behavior as something that is something fairly straightforward with a singular cause, for example, the thought of a dog wagging a tail due to it receiving a treat. Even though this belief is held by many people, it is a common misconception. Behavior in and of itself is actually determined by multiple different facets. This is shown in the movie 12 Angry Men that portrays a variety of psychological phenomenon to highlight this.

In Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men there is a clear juror whom swayed the others and directly expressed his ideas. He is a “gentle man...who wants justice to be done.” Juror no.8 is the hero as his initial choice to vote not guilty locks in the boy's fate of escaping a life of prison and punishment; not excluding his persuasiveness and ideology of the morality of the other jurors. Juror no.8 single handedly voted against the grain and convinced other jurors of his logical reasons ‘it’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy of to die before talking about it first’. It was heroic of him to stand out against the others and the dramatic conclusion greatly attributed to his significant factor as the vote sway from 11-1 guilty to 12-0 for not guilty. Juror no.8 helped conveyed to the other jurors the boy's innocence. Persuading jurors in a chill mannerism whist jurors 3 and 10 were angry and impatient. Over the case juror no.8 was calm and reviewed the evidence taken from the prosecution and it's flaws. Juror no.8 constantly reviewed the evidence with other jurors presenting logical

In 12 Angry Men, Juror #8 tries to convince the other jurors that the defendant of the case, an 18 year old boy accused of stabbing his father to death, is not guilty based on a reasonable doubt. Throughout the film Juror #8 goes over the facts and details of the case to point out the flaws in the evidence in order to prove there is, in fact, a reasonable doubt. The film depicts the struggles of the underdog and going against the majority in order to stand up for what is right. In one scene, the piece of evidence being put into question is a testimony from an elderly man who lived below the boy and his father and claimed he heard the murder happen and saw the boy leave the apartment after it happened. It is being put into question whether the elderly man who walked with a limp could make it to his doorway in order to witness the boy running away from the crime in fifteen seconds.

In the drama Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, juror 8 does a good job in persuading the other jurors to listen and reconsider the evidence. He uses his rhetorical appeals to captivate the other jurors attention. He gains an authority towards the other jurors which makes them trust him more. Juror 8 deconstructs the testimony and evidence with his rhetorical appeal to make the other jurors consider the innocence of the defendant.

In the movie 12 Angry Men, juror number 8 (Henry Fonda) was not sure if evidence presented...

Jury: a body of people (typically twelve in number) sworn to inquire into matters of fact and reach to a verdict on the basis of the evidence presented to them in court. In 12 Angry Men, there were twelve jurors and eleven of them were ready to reach a verdict, to decide the life of a boy who was barely an adult, without reviewing or discussing the evidence and facts given to them during the trial. This changed when Juror #8 challenged the opinions of the other eleven and introduced the idea of reasonable doubt. As a result, by the end of the discussion after examining matters of fact, a verdict was made off the basis of the evidence shown in court, and every one of those eleven jurors, who had originally voted guilty, changed their position to a unanimous one of not guilty. Juror

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.

The movie 12 Angry Men?s background is about a young man who is charged with murdering his own father. Therefore, 12 men are designated to be the jurors on the young man?s trail. Most of the jurors want to get rid of this case, the reason they give, is because the young man is not white, except one guy raised objections --- the Juror 8. The entire movie revolves around the process of the 12 jurors deciding whether the young man is guilty or not. At the end of the story,

Name: Elizabeth Garcia     In the movie "12 Angry Men" Juror 8, is one of the most effective communicators that I saw throughout the movie. Unlike some of the jurors, who resorted to used their biased and prejudice opinions.   For instance there's a conflict between the two is that juror 8 did his homework and juror Number 3 is basing his verdict on the fact that he doesn't give any slack to those from the lower class because he simply doesn't like them.   Juror 8 was an effective communicator because he used Provisionalism, and problem orientation, to prove the boy was innocent.

Twelve men on the jury. We've finished hearing the case, and now we are deliberating their decision. A tenth of them wants to condemn the man. One thinks that he is innocent. The other eleven want him to alter his voice so that they can provide their verdict and go home. He refuses, so they have to say about it. If they can not reach a unanimous decision, the case must be brought to trial. They say a lot. Gradually, the jury a ten others come around to agreeing to the stronghold and one of the accused is innocent, and his lawyer has lousy representative job. They all have different personalities and different reasons to believe the way they do, so it's not all the same argument every time. They go through all the evidence presented at trial,