The real reason he was being so obnoxious was because he had issues with his teenage son which effected his opinions about teenagers. That is why he was voting guilty throughout the movie. No one knew about his son, and background so they had no clue why he was so obnoxious. When juror #3's emotions were revealed everyone knew why he was so angry and that changed everyone thought about him.
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.
Looking weak in front of surrounding gang members can be humiliating for Steve, so he acts tough. Basically, Steve a normal kid who is influenced by bad stuff that surround him, contributed to making him bad. Being influenced by bad or good concepts can make a person good or bad. Like any other kid, who upon notices that they made a mistake due to their reactions to sudden, rash questions which can make any teenager land in big trouble due to bad influences around them can later start regretting, wishing they never agreed to the deal because they were afraid
1) Analyze how the jurors’ personality traits influenced the group decision process. In so doing, identify the most critical moments which can support your argument. Moreover, identify the main roles within the jury, and describe possible correlations between jurors’ personality traits and such roles In the 1957 classic film “12 Angry Men”, group dynamics are portrayed through a jury deliberation. On “the hottest day of the year, without air-condition”, 12 jurors have the duty to decide whether a young boy from the slums murdered his father and should be executed. To render a verdict, they must unanimously vote that the boy did or did not kill his father beyond all reasonable doubt.
This movie was all about non-ethical and lazy like sayings, such as: “lets get it over quick” and “who really cares”. One guy, the 8th juror, did not agree with these saying’s and believed that a tough decision like this could not be decided in 5 minutes. He played a smart game, which we call ’playing devils advocate’. While the 11 men thought the person charged was guilty, this one juror thought differently. The 12 angry men were your average men, but each one had a different side.
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.
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.
Twelve Angry Men is the story of twelve jurors stuck in a room trying to reason out with each other weather a young boy is guilty of killing his father. Emotions flair when one juror stands up for the boy saying that he is indeed not guilty. The story is filled with examples of pathos, ethos and logos. In this writing I will explain some of the spots those three literary tools are used. In the play Twelve Angry Men juror number eight uses ethos when he tries to explain to juror number ten that the old man could not have heard the boy say “I’m going to kill you” to his father.
Twelve Angry Men is a film that chronicles the deliberation process of a jury in the decision of a murder case. The jury, while comprised of twelve men, depicts men from all walks of life—from a seemingly affluent architect to a man who has lived in slums all his life. As such, the issue of diversity seems to be the driving source behind the conflict of the film. In the beginning of the film, Mr. Davis (Henry Fonda, Juror #8) finds himself the sole juror who believes the accused is possibly wrongly accused of the crime. All other eleven men are certain that the boy is guilty.
The movie “12 angry man“ is about the discussion of a jury that has to decide about the destiny of an 18 year old man who is accused to have murdered his own father. The delinquent has an immigrant background and grew up under difficult family circumstances in the slums. He has a long criminal record and at first sight all the facts seem to support that he committed the crime. If the jury comes to the conclusion that there is no reasonable doubt about the guiltiness of the young man he will receive a lifelong sentence in prison and eventually even the death penalty. At the beginning of the jury discussion an initial vote reveals that 11 jurors think the delinquent is guilty and only juror 8 votes for not guilty.