He doesn’t want to vote guilty until he has enough evidence that this boy did indeed kill his father. Many different points are made about the boy who supposedly stabbed his father, that are cross examined well by juror #8 who still stands alone at not guilty. All of the evidence that the 11 jurors found contains flaws in
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.
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”.
"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
People usually exist in a society with both prevalent and cultured morals, which can oppose ethics held by wider society. In the film “A Separation”, two featured families, Nader’s and Hodjat’s, who hold similar, but different morals to each other; the families force reaction from each other as they each act in discord to each other’s ethics. The families spark a court case, which is rapt in lies. Asghar Farhadi shows how during struggles, even the most reasonable and trustworthy people, show shades of guilt and lie; going against their original principles of honesty. Correspondingly to Farhadi’s film, a moral conflict takes place as the United States want to prevent Russia invading Ukraine.
tName: __________________________ 12 Angry Men Part A: Define key terms 1.Verdict: 2.Homicide: 3.Consitution: 4.5th Amendment: 5.Hungjury: Part B: Identify the Juror a) The man who does the piglet voice. _____ b) Humorless man (the a-hole). _____ c) The man who doesn’t sweat. _____ d) The coward. _____ e) The first man who voted not guilty.
You have to persevere with ignorant people in order to agree upon a solution. By fighting it just gets more people angry and riled up and more people will fight. But, if you cooperate with other people then you can accomplish so much more because arguing provoked the person to get madder with you then they already are. Sometimes countries fight with other countries over things like resources, but with perseverance and kindness you can come upon an agreement instead of fighting. I agree with this quote there will always be a person who has a different opinion.
Bailey Shelton Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose shows the courage and bravery of jurors faced with making life altering decisions for defendants in the legal system. The play begins with twelve jurors deciding the fate of a boy accused of murdering his father. Eleven of the twelve jurors automatically accuse the boy of being guilty while one juror stands alone defending the boy of being non-guilty. One theme that Rose expresses in the play is courage. Courage is expressed in the play by Juror 8 who stands alone in voting non-guilty while the other eleven vote 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
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.