WHY WAS IT SO DIFFICLUT FOR THE JURORS IN TWELVE ANGRY MEN TO MAKE A FINAL VERDICT Reginald Rose’s play Twelve Angry Men portrays the fallibilities of the social justice system. The 8th juror was the main character that allowed the defendant to get a fair trial, however he also made it harder to decide the final verdict. Other jurors, like jurors 9 and 5, who had reasonable doubt, helped the architect reach his “not guilty” verdict, by clarifying some of the testimonies and evidences that were given to them, which had an impact on the final decision. While other jurors such as 10 and 3, only served to make the conclusion to the jury more mystifying, by standing in the way of other’s arguments, using aggression, prejudice and forceful tactics. Therefore, the dangers of specific qualities in people are displayed to the readers, using the jurors as microcosms for the different groups of society.
The drama’s focus is on a jury’s deliberation over a young man’s fate and the crucial role truth plays in relation to the decision. This idea is developed in the play through the actions and statements of characters like Jurors 3, 8, 10 and 11. The 8th Juror believes that a thorough examination of the evidence of the case is vital when making these deliberations. This leads him to review the case logically in order to arrive at the truth as he is trying to demonstrate that there is reasonable doubt about the boy’s guilt. The 10th Juror is prejudiced and racist against the boy and his race as well as his background.
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.
By posing many questions to the murderers, Macbeth is helping to persuade them. A question can substitute for a request, and while a listener is searching for an answer, the speakers can give his own answer to the question. The listener (the murderers) is more likely to accept it than if it were given as an assertion. Lastly, most of Macbeth’s questions also have
He seemed to want approval from other members of the jury by making jokes and not being a part of much of the discussion. He always voted with the majority and did not firmly commit to one side or the other, but rather voted to which way the wind was blowing at that time. There was even one point at which he had voted not guilty, based on the majority at that time, but changed it back to guilty because he felt pressure from one of the other jurors. He definitely appeared to want to avoid confrontation with any of the other jurors. Juror #12 did not offer any suggestions or add to the discussion unless asked to clarify his position, which he really never
Local biases and prejudices influence the outcome of many trials. The jurors disregard logic presented by a judge or defense lawyer, because of past experiences or moral sentiment. Prejudiced jurors in the past have unjustly convicted innocent defendants. Stereotyping and racial profiling contribute to miscarriage of justice in some cases. Furthermore In a standard jury trial, the prosecution must convince a majority of 12 people of a defendant's guilt.
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
Liberty and Justice for all. These are the words American’s live by. America is dependent on a court system, which just so happens to have a jury. A jury is a group of people that decide whether someone is innocent or guilty. The play Twelve Angry Men was about a jury system trying to debate about a tough topic, that could’ve affected a boy’s life forever.
Finally, the juror who pushed for not guilty from the start gets the coat of the juror who was the last hold out for guilty and helps him into it. No dialogue is spoken. Four times, gestures of kindness between men who were at each others’ throat take place. This silent scene is so much more powerful than if one of the characters had simply said, “I think we’ve come to a place where we can respect each other despite our differences.” Making the same point with non-verbal cues was much more effective story telling. According to me, all of the jurors except one showed passive behavior in the start of the movie.
Using Jurors Three, Eight, and Ten will show you whether or not they show justice. Starting with Juror 3, we can see from the beginning of Act One, Juror Three makes his decision without looking at the evidence much like the others. Yet what makes Juror 3 special is that he has a dislike for the rebellious youth. “It’s the kids… I’m gonna bust you up into little pieces… Rotten kids! I hate tough kids!”(21).