In fact, it is this dynamic on which the trial-by-jury system relies. At its best, a jury – like any team working together to produce a specified result – will draw on the different personalities, approaches and strengths of each individual team member to achieve a creative abrasion which, in turn, will allow them to produce the “right” (and fair) verdict. When the jury first convenes, eleven of the 12 jurors are convinced of the boy’s guilt (e.g. juror 3 – “this is an open and shut case”): • A minority of the jurors actually seem convinced of the boy’s guilt by virtue of the testimony given in court. • Others are basing their decision on their own deeply rooted prejudices – again others on personal experiences.
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.
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. Rose symbolises the 8th Juror as a representative for the defendant, as he is able to go against the majority and put forth his own ideals that are not just concentrated around his own personal emotions. Rose highlights this characteristic within the 8th Juror to mirror the way in which Americans were faced with the task of either conforming to McCarthyism, or simply holding onto their own ideals. Rose incorporates the notion within the 8th Juror that standing alone does not mean that a person is ignorant, but are using the facts to come to a conclusion where there is “a reasonable doubt.” By placing the jury men into a scenario that can be related to American’s in the 1950’s, he emphasises that the actions of the 8th Juror within the room is minute in comparison to the actions taken by Americans during that era. Through the persuasion of the 3rd and 10 Juror’s, they are able to control the thoughts of the other men as a result of their personal bias.
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.
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.
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.
Whether or not this man was punished and remained in jail was up to the prosecution. Heffernan’s critical decision would be whether or not to remove his thoughts on morality from his professional decision. The defendant had a legal right to a jury trial and a moral right to have it vindicated. Since the judge had refused to instruct the jury concerning the justifiable use of deadly force, the defendant had been denied that right. Heffernan was faced with whether
12 Angry Men persuaded by rhetoric In the movie 12 angry men rhetoric is found throughout the movies as the jurors argue amongst one another as to whether or not a teenage boy is guilty of stabbing his father. As they dig deeper into the case and examine evidence closer the jurors use all three forms of rhetoric, ethos, pathos, and logo’s in order to decide the boys fait. When the jurors first take a preliminary vote it is found that juror number 8 is the only one who votes not guilty. When questioned by the other 11, he reveals to them that he couldn’t possibly vote guilty without first discussing the case, because the guilty verdict would mean the death of teenage boy. 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.
In the movie 12 Angry Men there are several people who could be considered a hero. Some would say that the true hero was Juror Number 6, who first doubted the guiltiness of the young man; some would say it was the Foreman who kept relative order in the room; however, Juror Number 7 should definitely not be overlooked. Number 7, along with contributing an important piece of knowledge, was the one who stopped the delivery of the guilty verdict, he was the first to vocally agree with Juror Number 6. Juror Number 6 was without a doubt one of the most important men in the room, but without the help of Juror Number 7 the guilty verdict would have been given to the judge. Number 7 was the first true believer; he went out on a limb, in wanting to find the truth, when he could have very easily anonymously voted guilty and they could have been done with the situation.
He gets absolutely passionate when enacting his work as a lawyer : « He emphasised his words by tapping his knuckles on the table » and really invests all his energy in this case. He disapproved of the Ewells unjust accusation of the so-called rape 'commited' by Tom Robinson as he knows he is innocent , and tries to the best of his abilities to win this case to be able to save the poor man from death penalty, but even if he knows that the Ewels are lying he still feels compassion for Mayella, he treats her politely , « I won't try to scare you for a while...», ««... Miss Mayella », said Atticus in