In many cases Twelve Angry Men shows how personal feelings can intertwine with decision making. The play shows how jurors could instantly presume one is guilty before thinking about the truth behind the evidence, and if it’s moral at all to vote guilty and deprive a man’s life for convenience and selfish acts for most of the jurors. “I think maybe we owe him a few words.” The eighth juror here tries to calm down the jurors In the courtroom and gives a chance of opinion so the members of the jury can discuss and give enlightened hope for the defendant. This occurs before the tenth juror states “He got a fair trial didn’t he”. The tenth juror is evocative of how he believes that the defendant doesn’t deserve any reasoning.
Collectively the 11 jurors question him as to why he voted guilty. Many jurors have personal prejudice and they are not willing to accept that the boy is not guilty. However, the juror who votes not guilty in the beginning uses role-play as well as assumptions that could be made to convince the rest. One of the jurors uses facts like the lady witnessed the boy killing the father. However, later the old man convinces him with his important
From a small town there really isn't much to do so he tended to do dumb stuff like cow tipping with his step-brother. sense he is always doing dumb things his character portrays a dumb person which is what makes the movie so great. ! In the beginning of the movie Tommy tries to take over after his fathers untimely death at his own wedding. Tommys exact words at the board meeting were “I’ll do it”.
I agree that individuals are more likely to be lazy and ineffective in groups than being alone. First of all, one reason why individuals tend to follow the group is because they think someone else has already taken care of the accident or situation. People who are alone when an accident occurs are more likely to depend on themselves. They think that if they don’t help the victim, nobody would help him or her. People who are alone are more likely to be effective because they imagine if they are the victim, they expect people around would help.
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.
Therefore Rose introduced the audience to jurors like 3, 4 and 8 who play a significant role in exposing the Juror’s duty. Juror 4 relies on logic and is in the play to simple put forward the information from the courtroom for the audience. Without Juror 8, the play would be completely different as he is the only Juror to vote ‘not-guilty’ and who wanted to ‘talk about it first’. Juror 3 on the contrary is the last one to change their vote to ‘not-guilty’ and creates tension in the play as he is full of anger and prejudice... Throughout the play, the exposed biases and flaws of the jurors along with the facts and evidence of the defendant take the audience on a journey of what it is like to be on a jury.
In the film 12 Angry Men there was only one juror who initially showed critical thinking in his evaluation of the trial. This juror was Juror Number 8. In my opinion, when the story first opened Juror 8 chose ‘not guilty’ because he was unconvinced that the defendant was guilty. However he was also unsure that the defendant was ‘not guilty.’ Because of his uncertainty, Juror 8 had to really on critical thinking skills to get answers and solidify his decision. The film presents the story so that Juror 8 would have to persuade the rest of the jurors to choose not guilty.
LEADERSHIP WITHIN 12 ANGRY MEN Andy Townsend Regent University THE LEADERSHIP WITHIN 12 ANGRY MEN The 1957 Film, 12 Angry Men, is about a jury on a murder case, with the verdict resulting in a matter of life or death for the accused. They must come up with a verdict for whether the boy is guilty or not for killing his father. The background of the boy on trail shows that he had been brought up in a slum and had a history of violence in the past. The jury is convinced that the boy is guilty, except for one member that sends the group into deliberation to make the ultimate decision of the boys’ fate. Juror number eight, played by Henry Fonda, is the member who stands
12 Angry Men (Deliverable from Wesley & Andrew) Idealized Influence: A transformational leader Chooses to do what is right: • Though it was convenient for all the jury members to conclude their decision in 5 minutes without giving serious thoughts to their decision, but he (our chosen character), insisted on exercising due diligence before taken a decision. He protested against the nonchalance of the jury: “we can’t decide in five minutes, we are talking about somebody’s life!” He had nothing personal to gain, but he insisted on doing the right thing. He votes against the other 11, saying that he doesn’t know if the kid is guilty, but feels that he deserves some discussion. • He stood alone for what was right in the face of intense pressure and ridicule of other jury members. 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.
Those with paranoid personality disorder want to be invisible because it will help them with their social avoidance. Although these people can hold down employment it doesn’t mean they have personal relationships with those they work with on the job. Individuals can marry and have children creating their own families. However, their sexual relationships are really of no interest to them. These individuals can speak rather slowly as if they are lethargic.