The Case Of 12 Angry Men In 12 Angry Men

1085 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Analyze jurors in 12 angry men

The 12 men in the movie 12 Angry Men, a jury, are deciding upon a case of murder in the first degree. The suspect in custody is an 18-year-old accused of stabbing his father. In this court system, premeditated murder is the most serious crime charged. If the jurors decide that the 18-year-old is guilty of murder than he will be sent to the electric chair and there is no other form of punishment. The men are very reluctant to hear this case because they feel it is very dull and that they can predict the outcome of the case. Alongside that, this trial is on the hottest day of the year with no A/C and no fan, which can account for some of the men’s guilty vote for they want to get out of the room. One of the jurors, number 7 has baseball game tickets to the 8 o’clock Yankees game and has a continuous guilty vote. Some of the other jurors feel that because of the baseball game tickets clouding his thoughts he is going to continue voting guilty. A decision was made to see what everyone is thinking on the case, so a hand vote was taken and the results are still 11 guilty and 1 not guilty. The 11 jurors that voted guilty want to know what is going through the head of juror number 8, who voted not guilty. They would like him to …show more content…

The climax was very strong and was easily pointed out. Although I may not have known the characters, their careers show that they were well known. The storyline/plot was easy to follow in some points, but in others, it left the viewer wondering why that detail was important. This movie is very detailed for a black and white film. Details for this movie were depicted in the words of the characters. Though the movie has ended and there are newer versions, it has left me wanting so much more. One of the main details is that in regarding names. I understand that in juries, knowing the names of the other jurors is not why they are there, but it makes things a bit easier in depicting who is

Show More
Related

  • 12 Angry Men Essay

    595 Words  | 2 Pages

    This report is on a movie called, “12 Angry Men.” The movie is about 12 men that are the jury for a case where a young man is being accused of killing his father. A major conflict that is very obvious is the disagreement on whether the young boy was guilty or innocent. After court when all of the men sat down to begin their discussion Courtney B. Vance (#1) Took charge and respectfully was now the leader. He asked what everyone’s votes were and all of the men except for Jack Lemmon (#8) voted the young man was guilty. Because Jack was the odd one that chose differently than the rest of the men, all of the other Jures, were defensive about the evidence just because they were all so confused.

    Read More

  • Uncertainty In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

    980 Words  | 2 Pages

    Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Men In 12 Angry Men

    904 Words  | 2 Pages

    We are all different. We are all at least biased on one topic. Some people just look at the surface, while others dig deeper into the facts that were given. Reginald Rose demonstrated these points beautifully in 12 Angry Men. All of the Jurors bring a special part of their personality to the jury room, which is the beauty of having a jury. All of the jurors are different in their own unique way,

    Read More

  • Prejudice in 12 Angry Men

    1000 Words  | 2 Pages

    The personality of the character played by Henry Fonda affected the way things played out because he was analyzing all of the evidence and the whole situation. The character played by Henry Fonda, was an architect. In the first initial vote, he was the only one who voted not guilty. This juror which was #8, made sure that they went over all of the evidence and eye wi...

    Read More

  • Stereotypes In The Play '12 Angry Men' By Reginald Rose

    911 Words  | 2 Pages

    This conveyed the central messages better than the play because in the play you had to envision in your mind (with a bit of imagination) the scene and the juror. In the movie, you could clearly see the situation and actors laid out for you. The actors were able to pack a punch and help you really experience the situation first-hand. People in their everyday lives, face peer pressure and often follow the crowd. It just takes one person to make a difference. It’s easier to stand along side one person rather than alone. By demonstrating the courage to do so you will also earn the respect of others around you. Its important to respect people for who they are in the present, and not who they were in the

    Read More

  • Analysis of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men

    714 Words  | 2 Pages

    As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate and seems to be somehow personally involved with the case. At one point, he tells the other jurors about an argument between him and his son. Juror 3 and his son had an argument which made his son run away. When his son returned to apologize, Juror 3 hit him for leaving the first time thus leading him to run away once more. He has not seen his son in two years and this has left him somewhat bitter inside. His anger toward his supposed ungrateful son is projected toward the young man on trial. Juror 3 has no concern for the life of the defendant. He makes it clear that he would have been an executioner and would have pulled the switch on the boy himself. His personal troubles have imposed on his ability to come to a verdict.

    Read More

  • Jury Trials: An Intersection of Everyday Norms and Courtroom Decisions

    1376 Words  | 3 Pages

    The use of the jury in some trials shows how the everyday atmosphere is brought into the courtroom. Jurors have a part in deciding the outcomes of cases and as a collective decide the extent of the harm in the case. They apply socially accepted norms to the courtroom when determining the enforceable situation of the alleged criminal (Garfinkel: 104). A juror is asked to be a blank slate when entering the courtroom. However, what needs to taken into consideration is the fact that each individual carries his or her own values, bias and beliefs in any situation. They decide to what extent the case at hand goes against the standards of the normal individual. The definition of normal in this case is subjected to the context in which the event is

    Read More

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

    1056 Words  | 3 Pages

    I believe that both characters showed interesting standpoints for the audience to recognize and maybe even understand. Juror 3 and 8 were definitely the two most conflicting characters; they created a lot of tension within the play. I find that the play “Twelve Angry men” really brought truth to the saying “justice is blind”; prejudice simply cannot interfere with the truth, neither can it restrict reasonable doubt.

    Read More

  • Analysis of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men

    617 Words  | 2 Pages

    Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.

    Read More

  • Stereotypes In 12 Angry Men

    723 Words  | 2 Pages

    The film 12 Angry Men depicts the challenge faced by a jury as they deliberate the charges brought against an 18-year-old boy for the first-degree murder of his father. Their task is to come to an impartial verdict, based on the testimony that was heard in court. The group went through the case over and over while personal prejudices, personality differences, and tension mounted as the process evolved. While the scorching hot weather conditions and personal affairs to tend to led the juror to make quick and rash decisions, one juror convinced them the fate of the 18 year old was more important than everyone’s problems an convinced them that they could not be sure he was guilty. Juror three took the most convincing. After fighting till he

    Read More

  • The Right To A Free Trial

    1515 Words  | 4 Pages

    videotaping of a real life jury as seen in a small criminal courtroom. The case

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Courage Analysis

    1026 Words  | 3 Pages

    From the very beginning of 12 Angry Men, we are shown a jury unevenly divided, eleven of the men voting for guilty, and one voting for not guilty. This

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men: Conflict in the Courtroom

    587 Words  | 2 Pages

    The jurors had several conflicts in disagreeing with each other and it didn't help that they would shout over one another. The very first conflict is when juror 8 voted not guilty against the 11 guilty votes. The other 11 jurors don't seem to want to hear this man out; they don't want to hear why he has voted not guilty. Some of these men, jurors 3 and 7, just want to get this case over with so they can get on with their lives. They don't think it is imperative enough to look over the evidence and put themselves in the place of the defendant. They get upset with this man and try to get him to vote guilty.

    Read More

  • Theme Of Conformity In 12 Angry Men

    1115 Words  | 3 Pages

    576). In 12 Angry Men, the jury that is voting is a death-qualified jury and all but one wants to convict. They are more prejudiced towards this Hispanic boy who could very well be innocent. In Young’s (2004) study, he proved that death-qualified juries were more likely to have prejudiced views of minorities that they are more willing to convict. In this study, he took a poll that resulted in the death-qualified juries saying that it is worse to let the guilty go free than to convict an innocent person. In both the film and Young’s (2004) study, it is shown that death-qualified juries are very quick to convict when they have someone’s life in their

    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 The Case Of 12 Angry Men In 12 Angry Men

Open Document