12 Angry Men Analysis Essay

268 Words1 Page

Derrick Nichols November 2, 2017 Management and Organizational Behavior Professor Shirley Wang 12 Angry Men Movie Analysis Davis (Juror #8) was an individual who cares about justice and who was willing to stand up against a crowd to do the right thing for another individual despite his mistakes. In the beginning of the movie he came off "as very soft spoken but throughout the movie he changes that. There were eleven votes for guilty. Juror 8 was the only opposing vote. Juror #8 believes that the defendant deserves a little empathy and believed that he could influenced that to the other jurors. I believe that Juror #8 was the knowledgeable juror of the 12 jurors on the case. Juror #8's arguments was not catching the attention of the other jurors

Show More
Related

  • Intolerance And Prejudice In The Play Twelve Angry Men

    1285 Words  | 3 Pages

    The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “You 're not going to tell us that we 're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I 've lived among 'em all my life. You can 't believe a word they say. I mean, they 're born liars.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Consensus Analysis

    1168 Words  | 3 Pages

    Twelve Angry Men is a depiction of twelve jurors who deliberate over the verdict of a young defendant accused of murder, highlighting many key communications concepts discussed throughout the semester. One of these concepts was the perspective of a true consensus, the complete satisfaction of a decision by all parties attributed. An array of inferences were illustrated in the movie (some spawning collective inferences) as well as defiance among the jurors. Each of these concepts play a role endorsing, or emphasizing the other. We can analyze the final verdict of the jurors and establish if there was a true consensus affecting their decision. In turn, we can analyze the inferences during the deliberation and directly link how they affect the consensus (or lack thereof). Defiance among the jurors was also directly

    Read More

  • Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose

    709 Words  | 2 Pages

    Juror number one, Martin played a leadership role by leading their session. He was very firm but calm. He ensured all jury members had the opportunity to exercise their rights on the day-to-day affairs of their deliberations. In the movie, he never lord his acclaimed role over his peers. He tried to seek their approval through a democratic process by voting either privately or publicly in the jury room. This is a quality needed for a jury leadership. He was a professional high school coach, as such, he was able to use his role as a leader to champion his agenda while maintaining the sanity in the jury room. Even though, he voted guilty in the beginning proceeding he later changed his decision to not guilty after numerous facts and evidence were presented by his peers. For this reason, I choose him as one of the member on my legal team

    Read More

  • Comparing and Contrasting Juror 3 and Juror 8 from Twelve Angry Men

    1056 Words  | 3 Pages

    These two jurors are almost the plain opposite of each other. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant man accustomed of forcing his wishes and views upon others. On the other hand, Juror 8 is an honest man who keeps an open mind for both evidence and reasonable doubt. Since these two people are indeed very different, they both have singular thoughts relating to the murder case. Juror 8 is a man who is loyal to justice. In the beginning of the play, he was the only one to vote ‘not guilty’ the first time the twelve men called a vote. Although his personality is reflected on being a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man, he is still a very persistent person who will fight for justice to be done. Juror 8 is a convincing man who presents his arguments well, but can also be seen as manipulative. An example would be when he kept provoking Juror 3 until he finally said “I’m going to kill you" to Juror 8. He did this because he wanted to prove that saying "I’ll kill you" doesn’t necessarily mean that Juror 3 was actually going to kill him. Juror 3 is a totally different character. He is a stubborn man who can be detected with a streak of sad...

    Read More

  • Jurors 'Beliefs In The Book Twelve Angry Men' By Reginald Rose

    557 Words  | 2 Pages

    First of all, the Juror has extremely different beliefs than the other Juror’s. Juror 8 beliefs that everyone should be innocent until proven guilty. “You know--living

    Read More

  • Ignorance in 12 Angry Men

    709 Words  | 2 Pages

    Juror number eight is the main protagonist, he also a reserved with his thoughts, yet very strategic with them. He is the defender of the down trodden victim. He has a calm rational approach to everything and he reveals the gaps in the testimonies placed against the defendant. These examples would be; that the old man couldn’t have seen the boy run out of the house, as the old man had a limp and therefore could not make it to the door in time. The old lady across the road could have never saw the boy stab his father, due to she wasn’t wearing her glasses and it was pitch black. Number eight is a man that s...

    Read More

  • Social Influence In Twelve Angry Men

    1331 Words  | 3 Pages

    For this project we viewed the original 1957 version of Twelve Angry Men, an American Drama, adapted from the teleplay written by Reginald Rose with the same name starring Henry Fonda as the lead role.

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men: Judging A Book By Its Cover

    1011 Words  | 3 Pages

    Juror #8 raised the question, “Why do you think he is guilty?” Instantly, one saw the effects that groupthink was taking on this collection of impatient people. Juror #8 saw the situation differently, however. In the film, 12 Angry Men, people’s true colors were really brought out–whether that be rage, racism, or selfishness.

    Read More

  • Differing Opinions in 12 Angry Men

    542 Words  | 2 Pages

    Juror 8 used some valid reasoning to convince juror 9 that the boy could possibly have been not guilty. Everyone else still continues to argue that the boy is guilty. Eventually, with more reasoning, others begin to understand how the boy could be proven not guilty. Each of these men had their own personalities and opinions on the case. Juror 1 was the leader of the group.

    Read More

  • Juror Seven

    732 Words  | 2 Pages

    Juror Seven just doesn’t care about the lower class. Juror Ten is a rude man that give the upper class a bad name. And Juror Eight is a man that thinks that every man deserves to have justice. Juror Three is a man that is completely stuck

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men

    1821 Words  | 4 Pages

    Juror 8 has no better reason to vote “not guilty” other than the sympathy he feels for the boy which he elaborates by saying, “Look, this boy's been kicked around all his life... He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years. ”(pg 13) While Juror 8 is pivotal in saving the boy from death, it can still be said that he exemplified prejudice in the form of reverse discrimination.

    Read More

  • Ethos, Logos And Pathos In 12 Angry Men

    822 Words  | 2 Pages

    Aristotle’s rhetorical triangle links three elements of arguing together: the speaker, the story, and the audience. The relationship between the elements determines the speaker’s argument and whether it will be successful in oratory or literature. Ethos, Logos and Pathos are each different aspects of the argument that must be balanced in order to succeed in persuading or convincing an audience. Ethos, or character, relates to the speaker’s credibility that the audience appeals to: it is useful when persuading a group of people to trust what you are saying or doing. Logos, or logic, is a way of convincing and appealing by reason, truth, and facts. Pathos relates to the audience’s emotions and their response to what the speaker is saying.

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Courage Analysis

    1026 Words  | 3 Pages

    “Courage - a perfect sensibility of the measure of danger, and a mental willingness to endure it.” Courageous people understand the danger that they face when they act how they do. That is what courage is all about. Many historical events occur due to people having the courage to do what they think is right, or because of those who use their courage to do what they want. Having the courage to stand alone in one’s beliefs may be one of the hardest thing a person can do.

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Analysis

    1432 Words  | 3 Pages

    Twelve Angry Men screenplay writer Reginald Rose once stated: “ It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone even if you believe in something very strongly.” In the film Twelve Angry Men, twelve jurors have to decide the justice of a young h/Hispanic boy. Every juror except one votes guilty, which meant that the jurors have to deliberate longer. The final decision the jurors make at the end of the film is found not guilty. The main aspects of the film include: setting, themes, and counter arguments. Every aspect has its own importance. The setting is filmed in one room. The themes display topics that deal with real life situations. Also the counter arguments are important because they also contribute to determining if the boy is found guilty

    Read More

  • Analysis of 12 Angry Men

    1246 Words  | 3 Pages

    In viewing 12 Angry Men, we see face to face exactly what man really is capable of being. We see different views, different opinions of men such as altruism, egoism, good and evil. It is no doubt that human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics, which make them unique. It is safe to say that our actions, beliefs, and choices separate us from animals and non-livings. The 20th century English philosopher, Martin Hollis, once said, “Free will – the ability to make decisions about how to act – is what distinguishes people from non-human animals and machines 1”. He went to describe human beings as “self conscious, rational, creative. We can fall in love, write sonnets or plan for tomorrow. We are capable of faith, hope and charity, and for that matter, of envy, hated and malice. We know truth from error, right from wrong 2.” Human nature by definition is “Characteristics or qualities that make human beings different from anything else”. With this said, the topic of human nature has been around for a very long time, it is a complex subject with no right or wrong answer. An American rabbi, Samuel Umen, gave examples of contradictions of human nature in his book, Images of Man. “He is compassionate, generous, loving and forgiving, but also cruel, vengeful, selfish and vindictive 3”. Existentialism by definition is, “The belief that existence comes before essence, that is, that who you are is only determined by you yourself, and not merely an accident of birth”. A French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, is the most famous and influential 20th - century existentialist. He summed up human nature as “existence precedes essence”. In his book, Existentialism and Human Emotions, he explained what he meant by this. “It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will be something, and he himself will have made what he will be 4”. After watching 12 Angry Men, the prominent view on human nature that is best portrayed in the movie is that people are free to be whatever they want because as Sartre said, “people create themselves every moment of everyday according to the choices they make 5”.

    Read More

More about 12 Angry Men Analysis Essay

Open Document