What Is The Moral Of The Play 12 Angry Men

Throughout the play, justice is most shown when deciding the outcome of this defendant. Juror Eleven explains how personal experiences should not bias one’s decision. Juror Eight has always displayed fairness throughout the case, especially when explaining how one’s motives should not influence the other’s decision. Lastly, Juror Ten explains how facts are more important when decided the defendant’s fate, and feelings should be kept silent. In the conclusion of 12 Angry Men, the author demonstrates how fairness will be chosen over pity or hatred when determining the offender’s

Reginald Rose’s play ‘12 Angry Men’ entirely takes place in a small New York City jury room where 12 male jurors have convened to decide the verdict in a homicide case. The verdict of this case will decide if a young boy will be charged with murdering his father, with a switchblade knife, on the first degree. The film shows us nothing of the trial itself except for the judge 's perfunctory, almost bored, charge to the jury where he reminds them that they must base their unanimous decision of “guilty” or “not guilty” on whether or not there is “reasonable doubt” in their minds as to the guilt of the accused. His tone of voice indicates the verdict is a foregone conclusion. We hear neither prosecutor nor defense attorney, and learn of the

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

The authors purpose of writing 12 angry men was to show how it can really be when it comes down to situations like that. What he was doing was great in my opinion because he did a really great job writing and producing the movie. He may have written to show how people can really be but if you have patient and actually think about the case you would find out what really happened.

Don’t Believe Everything You Hear 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a twisting story where a son is accussed of stabbing his father to death. Twelve strangers are told to listen to this court case and are then stuck in a small, hot room where they are told to decide on a verdict, whether or not the kid lives or dies. The jury finally decides on the verdict of : Not Guilty. Three major facts that influence the juries agreement that the accussed is not guilty include doubts of the murder weapon, doubts of the old man’s testimony, and doubts of the lady across the street’s testimony.

The 8th Juror was realistic because as everyone else rushed to their decision on the case, he decided to stop and take time out for reasoning. He did not know whether the boy was truly innocent or guilty but voted innocent because he wanted an opportunity to assess the evidence. The expert in Twelve Angry Men was actually the 8th juror because of his courage and knowledge to examine things

The complexity of justice is evident in Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’, through the employment of Truth throughout the American 1950’s judicial system. Throughout the text, the concept of justice is forged by the racal prejudices, personal bias, emotion, logistics, and reasoning of the Jurors, thus allowing truth to hinder or prevail. Justice is shaped by truth in ‘Twelve Angry Men’, as the Jurors begin to understand the reasonable doubt in the evidence against the defendant, as the truth becomes prevalent through the Juror’s deductive capabilities, thus allowing for injustice to be hindered by the truth, which ultimately leads justice to prevail in the judicial system.

Only one out of the twelve jurors originally displayed empathy toward a young man whose life was at trial. That one man, who identified himself as an architect, reveals his name as “Davis”, and acts as the protagonist in Twelve Angry Men. Standing as Juror Eight, he argued on the suspect’s behalf. Although, instead of defending the boy, he admitted to being unsure of a guilty vote and thought that his speculations deserved to be heard before the boy was put to death. As Juror Eight pressed to reveal holes in the case’s evidence, other jurors began to feel empathetic toward the suspect as well. Juror Five professes that he grew up in the slums and represents how character is not determined by where one is raised. In contrast, an ill old man proves to be bitter and declares a distrust of the boy from the very beginning. Juror Ten fails to empathize with the defendant even as a person, condemning him as “one of them” as one of his original arguments. This caused viewers to realize a prejudice that was common in the jury room. The bias denounces any empathy that the few stubborn, discriminatory men may have. Another juror to argue in favor of the prosecutors was Juror Three. This individual discloses his family situation and the bad blood between he and his son. His feelings toward his son seem to be projected onto the defendant as this man argues strongest and persistently for the boy’s sentencing. Juror Nine was the first to empathize with both Juror Eight and the defendant. He aided Davis in causing speculation among the others. Failing to empathize with the boy, many jurors disagree with Davis as he introduces conjecture in the beginning of the film.

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 the film "12 angry men", we can see that there is no sensitivity towards the kid that is blamed for homicide of his dad. Most of the legal jurors felt that there ought to be no requirement for sensitivity since the greater part of the proof that was brought into the court has smashed the safeguard and the kid's chance on trial. The arraignment made it clear that the kid is truth be told guilty. In the underlying vote that was finished by the legal jurors, everyone votes "guilty" against the kid aside from member of juror eight. This is the place we see the significance of juror eight in light of his sensible uncertainty the jury had not found the kid liable inside of the initial 10 minutes of their debating, which would have finished the trial. Juror eight did not as a matter of course trust that the kid was blameless, but rather he realized that on the off chance that he had raised his hand at the vote, it would all end, and they won't have an opportunity to talk about the case. Juror eight in eyes trusted that if the case finished, then it will put down the value of human life.

The 3rd juror from the drama “Twelve Angry Men” is another character that play an important role in the drama. Throughout the drama he argues hi point that the boy is guilty. To him it's clear that the boy is guilty because in a democracy you must decide based on the evidence given. In the drama “Twelve Angry Men” page 103 paragraph 82 - 83 it states “ I really think this is one of those open and shut things.” The 3rd juror is sharing his opinion that he thinks the boy is guilty based on the evidence he heard. The 3rd juror treats the accused a if he was a adult because of the crime he committed. He believes that the accused should be trialed as an adult and he receive the full punishment. In the drama “Twelve Angry Men” page 102 paragraph 75 - 76 it states “ I mean, lets be reasonable. You sat in court and heard the same things we did. The man’s a dangerous killer. You could see it.” The 3rd juror is stating that in

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

An individual's past experiences can have an incredible impact on the way they think and behave for years to come. So, the past have a significant impact on an individual. In my own life, I have had past experiences that have affected me to be the person I am today. One example is, whenever I walked through the downtown part of Edmonton and I noticed a lot of homeless people lying around on the streets. I felt so bad for those poor people that didn’t have a place to live. They appreciate anything and everything they get. This really effects me and teaches me to be more grateful in life. And appreciate everything I have. In the play the 12 Angry Men, jurors 3, 5, and 11 prove that their experiences has affected who they are. I believe that juror 3’s family issues such as his problems with his son has affected him to become an aggressive man. Additionally, juror 5 has had a background of living in a slum all his life. Therefore, he tries to prove that not all people living in slums are criminals. Lastly, juror 11 struggles with others judging him because he is a European Refugee. This affected him by making him feel unconfident about himself and feels that the others jurors don't take his opinion too seriously.

Twelve Angry Men is a courtroom drama that was brought to the big screens in 1957. The storyline follows twelve men selected for jury duty, who are trying to reach a verdict on a young man’s trial following the murder of his father. Throughout the debates and voting, the men all reveal their personalities and motives behind their opinions. Because of all the differences of the men, their communication skills lack in some ways and are excellent in others. The three small group communication variables that I found portrayed throughout the movie were prejudice, past experience and preoccupation.

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.