Guilty In Twelve Angry Men, By Reginald Rose

466 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Interpersonal communication in the courtroom

Why do people think the first option to find someone guilty is by accusation? Many judge others by what they say but not by their actions. Actions speak louder than words and that’s a proven fact. In the play, “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, act one, many of the jurors discussed their statements and by the hearing the case about the boy who was had committed premeditated murder. He was accused of murdering his father and the jurors had believed that he was guilty, they didn’t even try to hear his part of the story. Throughout the play, jurors had spent all day figuring out this case, trying to find reasons why the boy was guilty. Most of them didn’t even care about this case and they just wanted this investigation to be over with. For example, Juror number ten “this better be fast. I’ve got tickets to ‘The seven year itch’’. That entitles that he didn’t care about the case. In my opinion, I thought the boy was set up and all the witnesses they had they believed them over the real story. …show more content…

From the beginning juror eight had been by the boys side since the beginning. The others had questioned him about the decision he had made. In the play, juror eight didn’t have a reason why he wasn’t guilty, he stated “he’s nineteen years old.” He believes that everyone makes mistakes and don’t judge them by their age or by race. Especially juror ten, who was a bigot grumpy old man. He believed just because the boy was a different color he thought he was

Show More
Related

  • Personal Issues In 12 Angry Men

    1361 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the play, 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, the characters of this story appear to be nothing more than average people picked to stand and listen to a case of a boy accused of homicide. As the characters are supposed to leave personal issues at the door of the case, some appear to use them against the boy. For example, Juror three brings his family issues into the case making the issue insufferable. As for the rest of the jurors, they would gravitate to prejudice ways. In this case Juror ten, “Human life don't mean as much to them as it does to us.”(Rose). Using these imperfect jurors, people can see how that when insecurities, flaws, and the law form together, the justice system can be found. The justice system is neither perfect nor is it

    Read More

  • Twelve Angry Men: A Study of Justice

    1166 Words  | 3 Pages

    The themes, social inequality, and social responsibility are all present throughout the movie. The jurors can be seen as symbols for certain parts of society. Juror number eight is the most open-minded of the group. It is his vote, and his dissenting voice, which brought knowledge to the jury from delaying the jury to claim the boy was guilty. Juror number ten, on the other hand, symbolizes racism present in the mid-century American society. He assumes the defendant is guilty simply because he is from a horrible place in the town, and wants to see him in jail. The theme of justice is present throughout the play, as Juror number eight spoke to his other jurors to look at the facts rather than rely on their own emotional thoughts. Ideal justice was therefore shown to be both logical and also fair. The theme of class is also shown, even though there was a growing in the middle class around the 1950 's when the play was written and first came out, class struggles were still present in society, and the play was describe to be that a person should be judged based on the facts of the case, not bias thoughts and personal emotions. Also i realized that at the end of the film when the jurors leave the room, they are carrying their jackets out with them instead of actually wearing them. They are basically saying that they are leaving their prejudices

    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

  • Argumentative Essay On Jury 8

    991 Words  | 2 Pages

    At the beginning of the movie, a young man is being tried in court for premeditated homicide. The judge states that this is the most serious charge tried in the criminal courts and that if the young man is found guilty, he will get the death penalty. The judge then sends the main characters, the jury on their way to decide the boys fate. As soon as the jury got into the room, they started their discussion by casting an unanimous vote. Everyone agrees that the boy is guilty except for jury eight. He states that the boy had a rough eighteen years of his life and that might have been a motive for him to kill his father. Jury eight also says he just doesn't want to send the boy to death without talking about the case. Jury ten says the boy is automatically guilty because he is from the slums and his type of people are susceptible to becoming criminals. Jury four goes on to explain how the boy did the murder because the boy stated that he went to the movies with his friends but

    Read More

  • Reasonable Doubt In The Play 'Twelve Angry Man'

    892 Words  | 2 Pages

    Reasonable doubt is doubt of the defendant’s guilt for the crime that they are being accused of. If reasonable doubt exists the jury should pronounce the defendant not guilty. If the only doubt is are unreasonable doubt, the prosecutor has proven the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and he should be found guilty. In the play ' Twelve Angry Man', the jury must decide on a verdict regarding whether the boy in the trial is guilty or not guilty to murder on a first degree. Juror eight play an important role to help use evidence to create reasonable doubt for the rest of the jury. He provided clues that doubt had surfaced during the case, which helped prove that prosecutor had failed to provide enough evidence for a guilty verdict.

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Juror 8 A Hero

    909 Words  | 2 Pages

    In beginning when the jurors were taking their first vote, he stood against them, by himself, for his belief that the boy was not guilty based on the evidence that the jurors have been given. He even stood up against the others when it seemed that the other jurors had made up their minds about the boy. This is very different from what Juror three did at the end of the play because at the end of the play Juror three saw that he was the only one that still thought that the boy was guilty. After three saw this he backed down and went with everyone else. This makes Juror eight the hero because heroes need to stand up for what they believe in if they think that they are in the right. Also if eight would have not stood up for what he had believed in, then the boy would have gone to prison with evidence that didn’t prove he killed his father. The example of what three did at the end is used to show what someone who is not a hero would have done. Someone who is not a hero would not have stood up for what they believe in, they would have just gone with what everyone else was

    Read More

  • The Prominent Secondary Conflicts In 12 Angry Men, By Reginald Rose

    620 Words  | 2 Pages

    When you say I'm going to kill you do you really mean it? Tension rises in the jury room. Juror 3 is angry and wants to kill 8.” I'm going to kill you” the 3rd juror said, but did he mean it? 12 Angry Men written by Reginald Rose. Anger was fuming in the jury room. Was the boy guilty or not guilty of killing his father? It drove some of the jury to slowly turn on one another. In the play 12 Angry Men there was several prominent secondary conflicts that affect how the verdict concluded.

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Discussion Questions

    1291 Words  | 3 Pages

    The movie 12 Angry Men is about 12 members of a jury in a jury room discussing whether a boy is guilty or not of the killing of his father. When a vote is taken at the beginning, all members vote guilty except for Juror 8. He votes not guilty. When this happens, the members get mad at him for not agreeing with them. Juror 8 then points out that he doesn’t think the boy is necessarily innocent, but he doesn’t think he is guilty either. He states that he just wants to talk and discuss the case more. After he states this opinion, the men then proceed to start fighting and talking about whether they think the boy is guilty or not guilty. As a result, the 12 members of the jury began using the observation process to develop new knowledge for the

    Read More

  • Loss Of Innocence In 12 Angry Men

    1182 Words  | 3 Pages

    Although, their reason seemed valid in their eyes they were invalid in other jurors eyes, especially in juror #8’s. Their trust in believing the witnesses declarations allowed them to reason the boys honesty, which ultimately allowed them to announce his guiltiness. Furthermore, juror #8 presented them a distinct way of viewing the decision, in where he questioned the oath of the witnesses. This allowed the jurors to consume a distinct perception of the situation, in where the boy does seem ingenuous. Juror # 11 changed his decision and defended the boy later on the play. In his own words,” Why is this such a personal trial for you.”(Juror # 11) Here he questions juror # 3 in which he ultimately wants to express why juror # 3 can not accept his defeat. To add on, Juror # 9 also contaminates the pursuit to acknowledge his innocence. He uses sense perception to bring out a powerful point. He asks juror # 4,” Don’t you feel well?” Here he introduces the glasses as a vital point, he questions the visibility of the women in her validness to see the boy murder his father. Further, Juror # 8 says,” It is logical that she wore eyeglasses to bed.”(Juror 8) Indeed, the plague to prove the boys innocence spreads and everyone accepts the important facts being presented and reasoned

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Essay

    1602 Words  | 4 Pages

    Juror 3’s relationship to his son, influenced him to believe that if he could hit his dad, he could easily kill him. “Juror #3: Aah. When he was nine years old he ran away from a fight. I saw it; I was so embarrassed I almost threw up. I said, "I'm gonna make a man outa you if I have to break you in two tryin'". And I made a man out of him. When he was sixteen we had a fight. Hit me in the jaw - a big kid. Haven't seen him for two years.” Juror 7 has an obvious hidden agenda. He doesn’t actually seems to care about the boy’s life, and the decision that’s made. He felt convinced with himself that he thought he was guilty, and he didn’t want to waste any more time on that, and simply go to his baseball game. As the movie continues, it shows almost everyone was against Juror 8, but slowly, and slowly, they all begin to agree. The vote was again, 11-1, but this time, it was Juror 3 that was left alone with the empty vote of being the only with guilty. He stands his ground for a pretty strong amount of time, and rather just has a hung jury. I don’t really understand what he rambles on about towards the end, but he finally says, his vote is not

    Read More

  • Overcoming Prejudice In Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men

    426 Words  | 1 Pages

    Reginald Rose’s classic play, 12 Angry Men, deals with the importance of overcoming prejudice. Prejudice is an unfavorable assumption that is formed without any knowledge or reason ahead of time. Through the events of this play, prejudice is noticed, thus, creating unreasonable feelings or thoughts in regards to ethnic and racial groups. As the jurors enter the jury room, they seem to be focused on their own thoughts and ideas. On page 21, Juror 3 seems to be biased against the accused, due to the thoughts of his own son. “I’ve got a kid… When he was fifteen he hit me in the face. He’s big you know? I haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids! You work your heart out…” In this situation, many of the jurors carry emotional

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Movie Analysis

    1585 Words  | 4 Pages

    In the beginning portion of the film, there was a scene where juror ten explained he had a son. He went on saying his son had ran from a fight, and that he was embarrassed by his son. He and his son fought, his son hit him, and they had not seen each other for two years. (Lumet, 1956) I found this scene interesting, because the defendant had fought with his own father, and still juror ten saw him as guilty. It was not until the last few scenes in the movie that I understood why juror ten was so adamant that the defendant was guilty. It seemed to me that he was still upset with his own son, and felt that he could reflect his anger on the defendant. This whole situation is unethical based on the lack of fairness to the defendant, he was prejudice because the defendant reminded him of his son. “Decisions should be made without favoritism or prejudice” (Josephson, 2002 pg. 13) Also, the juror had no care for the welfare of the defendant in making this decision, he was being selfish in his decisions. The selfish behavior shows a lack of responsibility. “Responsible people exercise self-control, restraining passions, and appetites for the sake of longer-term vision and better judgment.” (Josephson, 2002 pg.12) His personal matter should have not interfered with his

    Read More

  • Resolutions and and Compromises in 12 Angry Men by George C. Scott

    761 Words  | 2 Pages

    At the beginning of “12 Angry Men” the judge says to the jury “One man is dead, the life of another is at stake. I urge you to deliberate thoughtfully and honestly,” this is putting the verdict completely on the jury. If any reasonable doubt is at hand they jury must confirm a verdict of not guilty.

    Read More

  • Critical Analysis Of Twelve Angry Men

    1330 Words  | 3 Pages

    When the 8th Juror refused to vote with his fellow jurors, it was decided that each would explain his belief in the accused’s guilt in the hopes of convincing the lone dissenter. The other eleven began mounting arguments using facts of the case: the murder weapon bought by the accused, the two witnesses to the crime, and the lack of an alternative suspect. Little by little, however, the deliberations began to cast doubts upon the formerly solid case; grey began to color the black-and-white situation. As this doubt bloomed, the 8th Juror put words to the voiceless uncertainty filling the hearts of his fellow jurors. Attempting to make evident the complexity of the previously simple decision, he said, “sometimes the facts that are staring you in the face are wrong” (38). Here the 8th Juror voiced a concern that came with pure adherence to the easiest explanation: the very real possibility that other, more significant sides to the story might exist. He urged his fellow jurors not to accept the story put forth by the prosecution without question but rather to challenge it vigorously in the hopes of finding the purest truth.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Twelve Angry Men

    652 Words  | 2 Pages

    Prejudice gets in the way of the truth; most of the jurors in the beginning were completely against the boy because of their pre-thought-out ideas of him. In the beginning after only five minutes consideration they pleaded him guilty, without taking into consideration the facts that might prove his innocence. They only paid attention to his past experiences and not who he is in the present. Most of the characters in Twelve Angry Men are influenced by their past experiences, Juror 3 and 10 are the most prejudiced people in the play. Juror 10 showed his thought about people who live in slums, he said that they are completely different as they are from another planet. "They are different. They think different. They act different", "They don't need any big excuse to kill someone." (Pg. 55-56). Racism is the biggest life example for prejudice, because people pre-judge a whole people based on the p...

    Read More

More about Guilty In Twelve Angry Men, By Reginald Rose

Open Document