In the play, “Twelve Angry Men”, by Reginald Rose, it illustrate the strengths and weaknesses in society during the 1950’s in America. By highlighting the 8th Juror’s defender of democracy montage, his ability to go against the mainstream mirrors the way in which Americans would dispute McCarthyism of such actions by addressing the prejudice that is embedded into the 3rd and 10th Jurors. However, it is through such controversial views that allow for a unanimous verdict to be reached. The 8th Juror’s stance against the other jury men prove to be a strength within the deliberations. Although the 8th Juror was the only individual in the jury room, who did not raise his hand to vote guilty in the initial vote, as he “[couldn’t] send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” He still held firm to his ideals of just talking about the case before any actions were to be taken.
This is a great example of the use of the rhetoric, ethos’s because he is basing his decision of not guilty, off of principles and morals rather than evidence shown, and wants to first discuss and way all the evidence of the case, rather than just making a quick decision because it seems that the logical answer would be guilty. After they start to discuss the evidence that was presented in court it is brought up by one of the jurors that the switch blade used in the murder was very unique and that it would be highly unlikely that someone else would have had the same exact knife as the boy and used it stab the victim. This is where number starts to use the rhetoric; of logo’s by revealing that had he had been walking in the boy’s neighborhood after the trail a knife that was the exact same one as the one found at the murder scene just two blocks from the boys home. He then goes on to explain that this proves that the boy could be telling the truth , about losing the knife in his neighborhood on the way home , and that the knife may not be as hard to come by as they may have thought. By bringing this up and providing evidence that could disprove what was presented in court , juror number 8
A12 Angry Men Essay 12 Angry Men, is a courtroom drama about one juror who slowly succeeds in persuading the remaining eleven jurors that the case presented in the courtroom, was not as clear as they originally perceive. Based on the novel, 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, the movie gives an excellent example of Carnegie’s prescriptive methods of persuasion; pathos (emotion), logos (logic) and ethos (ethics), or rhetoric, at work. The movie also provides an example of how a person’s personality, social and emotional IQ, world view, basic need and own expertise in rhetoric play a role in communication and the persuasion of others. Overall, 12 Angry Men, was an interesting movie that brought out the art of persuasion and communication required in a Jury room setting. The first Juror to vote not-guilty in the case, is Juror eight, a self-actualized man with an Engineer-type personality, who suggests the jury first discuss the facts of the case before condemning the accused eighteen year old to death.
12 Angry Men Topic (Groupthink) that helps an individual understands the movie, 12 Angry Men. “12 Angry Men”, is a movie about 12 jurors who get stuck in a room to debate if a person charged of murder is guilty or not guilty. The case seemed to look like a one sided case, but little did they know one guy would vote differently. The 11 men actually lost to one man, and it caused emotions from the beginning to the end of the movie. This movie was all about non-ethical and lazy like sayings, such as: “lets get it over quick” and “who really cares”.
Juror #2 was a very frantic and nervous type of guy. In the beginning he voted the boy guilty, but by the end of the film his reasonable doubt had him opposed to that previous notion. Juror #3 was the assumed “antagonist” which fits his character very well. He was all for the young boy’s execution the whole time until he glanced at a picture that held some type of symbolism to him when he finally broke down and voted innocent. Juror #4 the Wall Street guy was very analytical about his vote.
Gabriel Cardona Communication 101 October 22, 2012 12 Angry Men “If there is a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused, a reasonable doubt, then you must bring me a verdict of 'Not Guilty'. If, however, there's no reasonable doubt, then you must, in good conscience, find the accused "Guilty". –Judge. Twelve Angry Men is a black and white film from the 1950’s in which 12 men from different backgrounds and lifestyles must use group communication to decide a young, mislead boys fate. All men are lead into a jury room to cast their individual votes and determine a final verdict to the trial.
Critical Response to “Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: A Lesson in the Power of Situation” by Phillip G. Zimbardo Abraham Lincoln once quoted “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man character, give him power”. Power is frequently defined as the ability to influence the behavior or others with or without resistance. The use of power could be seen as good or evil depending on whomever hands it falls into. In the article “Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment…,” Zimbardo does an experiment to prove his theory on “what happens to essentially good people when they are placed in positions of power in a prison situation” (Zimbardo 302). The experiment shows that every man, even a good one, can in circumstances do horrible things.
This trial of the Nazi judges presented additional dilemmas. The question was presented that maybe the Nazi judges should have remained on the bench in order to make the system of justice more merciful than it otherwise would have been. It had to be known if the main Judge had resigned he would have been replaced by a more brutal official, which was what happened. This could potentially be a defense that the Judges acted in a brutal and merciless way– that a worse judge was appointed when they left the bench. This touches on the notion of
But when I myself read “Othello” for the first time, I saw Iago as an expert at judging people and their characters and it really shone how he used them to his advantages. And yes I know that the play is titled “Othello” and he has the fatal flaw and his self-absorption, and I can see why others view him as the main cause of his own fall but it never necessarily occurred to me to view the play in any other way than with Iago as the leading villain. I: Yes I completely understand where you’re coming from with that. Especially with the power of Iago’s soliloquies throughout the play, I felt that they were so strong so that the audience could see the true feelings he has for other characters and his motives for his actions throughout the play. And your technique of having Brannagh look
In fact, throughout the entire film, it is probably Davis’s amicable nature as well as cool reasoning that most persuades the jury members. He approaches the case in a naive style. He uses the phrase, “what if...” and “it might be possible” when he presents his ideas. He does not try to force his opinions on the other jurors; instead he just wants to understanding the reasoning behind their guilty verdict. Another example of a power tactic used by Davis is bargaining.