Describe at least one important conflict in the text(s) One important conflict in the drama script 12 angry men by Reginald Rose was between Juror number 3 and Juror number 8. Their contrasting personalities and different beliefs caused conflict between them throughout the entire play. From the beginning of the drama script and throughout the play Juror number 8 was portrayed to us as the ‘perfect juror’ being fair, objective and strong minded. He was the only juror willing to rifle through the evidence to try and figure out whether the defendant in question was guilty or not. Number 8 was the only juror who voted not guilty in the first vote causing conflict amongst the other jurors.
The jury was almost unanimous, with the exception of Juror #8 who won’t vote guilty. His leadership skills and tactics are very apparent early on in the film, as he suggests the group not be so quick to move on. Instead of jumping on the band wagon, he voices his opinions and doubts because a man’s life is on the line. He used several different influence tactics while defending the boy on trial. He started with some personal appeals by talking about how the boy was abused by his father and grew up in the slums.
Different faces of prejudice clouded the minds of 11 of the 12 men on the jury in this film. From the man who had estrangement from his own son, to the man who had grown up in the same conditions of the boy on trial. The prejudices had led to the 11 men voting a guilty plea against the defendant. Only one man did not have any pre-assuming prejudices against the young defendant, and he stood his ground while facing the other 11 men. Checking your intuitions to not allow them to lead you blindly in any situation is a lesson to be applied to this film.
Another cause of process loss seen in the movie was the failure to share relevant information. For the opening stage of deliberations Mr. Davis says nothing of the doubts and theories he has on why the boy is innocent; the other jurors share the information that leads them to believe he is guilty and all come to the conclusion that he should be convicted. A very important aspect of group interactions closely related to process loss is groupthink. It is actually a cause of process loss where the cohesiveness of the group becomes more important to its members than actually considering the facts. This is incredibly applicable to the characters in the film because the very conditions that lead to groupthink are those that characterize a jury; the group must be cohesive,
Bias 12AM Twelve Angry Men illustrates that justice is often affected by people’s bias. During the jury’s decision-making process, Juror 10 is violently prejudiced against anyone who comes from a slum and believes strongly that the defendant is guilty. Juror 10 always refers to the defendant as ‘they’ rather than an individual which shows his preconceptions and inability to make a fair judgement. Repetition of the word different within the play ‘They are different. They think different.
Socrates was executed in 399 BCE. He was charged with impiety and corruption of Athenian youth. Before his trial he spoke with a man about the nature of piety in the hopes that his new found knowledge could help him to prove his innocence. As their conversation progresses it becomes clear that Euthyphro has trouble defining what piety and impiety are. It also becomes clear that Socrates seems to have known this all along and is actually trying to show Euthyphro that each man has his own idea of what piety is, and that there is no absolute truth concerning piety or impiety.
This bitter diatribe leads to a narrative turning point when the 4th Juror angrily turns against his former ally and tells him to not open his ‘filthy mouth’ again. Hence, by creating the tension in the ‘hot’ ‘locked’ jury room, Rose invites the audience to understand that dangerous flaws such as prejudice can harm the judicial system which ultimately threaten
Citizens were thrown together into a hot, humid room to determine the guilt or innocence of a boy accused of killing his father in a moment of rage. In the film we weren’t able to observe the actual events. We were told the allegations by the jurors. We based everything mainly on the opinions which made the film so unique. I liked how we basically got inside the heads of the jurors.
It teaches us the meaning of free will and being able to independently decide what is truly pious or impious based on personal beliefs. In brief, the dialogue, Socrates tells Euthryphro how he is being put on trial for supposedly corrupting the youth and not fully believing in the god’s that the city believes in. Socrates doesn’t believe that he is guilty for any act, and seeking help from Euthryphro to educate him in how to act during his trial. With that, Euthryphro then shares a time when he was prosecuted for putting his father to trial due to a murder that his father unintentionally committed, and even though it was an unintentional act, it was still seen as a crime to the Greeks. After hearing what Euthryphro has to say about the prosecution of his father, he realizes that Euthryphro is a very wise man.
As noted in “Apology”, Socrates is trying to defend himself and explain his behavior to the jurymen as he states “I must surely defend myself and attempt to uproot from your minds in so short a time the slander that has resided there so long” (22). Socrates discards exile and prison, and offers to pay a fine only to find out that the jury rejected his proposal and had sentenced him to death. Socrates was against this at first, but then he gives in as he states “He assesses the penalty at death. So be it” (38) because he had decided that he shouldn’t fear something that he has never witnessed before, in this case, death. In “Crito”, Crito comes up with two arguments on the ethical level: if Socrates gave into death, he is helping his foes win by giving in to what they want and he would be leaving behind his sons and family.