"Set in the sweltering summer of 1957, Reginald Rose bases his play “12 Angry Men” on the notion that personal experience has the capacity to influence and sway our decisions. *Rose specifically amplifies this ideology as throughout the play, as a myriad of contrasting backstories are seen to be the foundation of the characters judgments. Set amongst a court case apropos to a 16 year old boy convicted of killing his father, the “reasonable doubt” underlying his conviction is explicitly supported by one Juror 8 amidst 11 others. Demonstrating the diversity of the Jurors, Rose illustrates the “2 America’s” that can be observed in the different Jurors identities. In addition the jurisprudence of America enshrines the belief that “the multitude
Reasonable doubt can be a very difficult term to understand. If a jury has any reasonable doubt that the accused may not have committed the crime, then it must enter a not guilty verdict. Each person may have their own opinion of the term reasonable doubt. In the play Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, Juror Eight stands against 11 other men, fighting to find reasonable doubt in a homicide case. The accused is a young 19 year old boy, and the victim is the young boy’s father.
In ‘Twelve Angry Men’, the playwright Reginald Rose presents a jury of twelve men from contrasting backgrounds that has to decide the fate of a young defendant. Rose wrote the play after being on a jury himself, and therefore wanted the audience to known about the role of the jury and the due process. In this play, the defendant plays a dominant role as without him there would be no case and hence no jury. However Rose deliberately chose not to have the defendant make a physical appearance in the play as this would influence the audience’s opinion and focus their attention on the crime rather than the conflicting jury and their objectivity. Therefore Rose introduced the audience to jurors like 3, 4 and 8 who play a significant role in exposing the Juror’s duty.
The film “Twelve Angry Men” is a very interesting and captivating one. This film features twelve jurors who are middle-aged men. A young boy is on trial for the murder of his father and these jurors are faced with the responsibility of deciding whether or not he is guilty. However, the room that they deliberate in is very uncomfortable and hot. As they deliberate they are weighing the facts to ensure that they come up with a unanimous decision.
Juror #1 is the Foreman of the jury. He is serious about his role and tries to run the proceedings in an orderly fashion, reminding the jurors “Just let’s remember we’ve got a first degree murder charge here. If we vote guilty, we send the accused to the electric chair.” Juror #2 is timid, quiet and unsure of himself, finding it hard to maintain an independent opinion until he finds the courage to point out an important question about how the murder was actually committed. Juror #3 is the antagonist. He is a forceful, intolerant bully who sees the case as simple and believes the accused is absolutely guilty.
Savannah Stephens English Honors Juror Seven Twelve angry men is a drama about a sixteen year old boy who allegedly killed his father. When the only people deciding your fate are complete strangers you hope that they take a second look at what the facts are. Juror VII stands out, with barely a background, rude actions, and a confidence that he’s never going to be persuaded. Slicks, self-centered, jerk who is a salesman who wants to be anywhere but in this juror meeting. He talks about how he made a fortune selling marmalade (Pg.).
Admission Ticket 4 Twelve Angry Men From the movie, it was seen that the power of the testimonies given by the eyewitnesses was huge to the juries and it was suggested that a ‘vivid eyewitness account is difficult to erase from juror’s minds ( Leippe,1985) and hence more likely to result in a conviction (Visher,1987). Therefore the jurors should take the misinformation effect into account. For example, a witness heard the boy shouted “I’m going to kill ya” few hours before the father was killed, may lead the witness assumed the boy was the murderer. And also the woman who claimed to see the murder while juror #8 tried to query her reliability of not wearing any visual aids at that time. Although juror #8 was the only one who voted “not guilty” in the open ballot of the earlier scene, he was as Myers (2010) explained that a minority was most persuasive when their arguments were “consistent, persistent and self-confident”.
HRMG 6200 / Section 6 August 26, 2012 Week 2 – Interpersonal Behavior Interpersonal Communications: “12 Angry Men” (1957) In the film 12 Angry Men a group of twelve white male jurors are tasked to provide a verdict of guilty or not guilty in a case judging an 18-year-old minority (Puerto Rican) boy of murdering his father. All 12 jurors come from a different walk of life and although all members are Caucasian, the group is extremely diverse. As a result, several personality conflicts emerge and highlight the many differences these twelve strangers have (cultural/value based/assumptions). These individual differences and previously formed biases play a major role in each juror’s opinion, which have an affect on the overall decision-making process and ultimately the final verdict of the jury. This analysis and study of group dynamics will concentrate on the importance of interpersonal as well as intergroup communication.
Jake builds a bridge with the audience towards the end when he starts to get emotional and cry. That shows the viewers that he is not only professionally involved with the trial but also very emotionally involved as well. Finally, the closing argument, most importantly, uses Ethos. It uses a fair, open-minded, honest, and well-informed opinion about the subject matter. Now here is a white male, defending a black father who killed two white men after raping his 7
The old man who first changed his vote acknowledged this admirable transformational leadership quality when he commented: “it is not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others. He gambled for support and I gave it to him”. A transformational leader is a role model: • He powerfully modeled having a thoughtful, investigative and inquiring mind to the rest of the jury members by re-examining the key evidences of the prosecutor and the 2 witnesses. Other members of the jury soon followed his example and started raising “reasonable doubts” which led to a unanimous “Not guilty” verdict. • He Frequently reinforces that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and that if there is reasonable doubt, then they should acquit the kid • This character has a very clear idea of what the goal is here.