“Come on. You’re like everybody else. You think too much, you get mixed up.” This quote written by Reginald Rose from 12 Angry Men perfectly sums up why the jurors needed to have doubt. Doubt was the most important factor in coming up with the conclusion that changed many of the jurors minds. The jurors needed to have doubt for the conclusion to come out as not guilty because the witnesses could have been lying, the jurors contradicted their arguments many times, and reasonable doubt was present. The jurors could not be certain if the witnesses were telling the truth, so they needed to have doubt. Many times in the play the jurors bantered back and fourth about the witnesses creditability. The idea about the witnesses was tossed around in Act 1 when Juror Ten stated “Look, what about the women across the street? If her testimony don’t prove it, then nothing does.” (Rose 316). Then later in the same act Juror Eight argues back by saying, “I’d like to ask you something. How come you believed her? She’s one of …show more content…
In the very start of 12 Angry Men the judge states, “If there is reasonable doubt in your mind as to the guilt of the accused… then you must declare him not guilty. If, however, there is no reasonable doubt, then he must be found guilty.” (Rose 312). Many of the men do not follow this requirement by being stubborn and by not wanted to listen to other opinions. Another time reasonable doubt was present, and some jurors decided not to listen, was about the knife used to kill the father. Many of the jurors were convinced that the cashier was telling the truth about only having one knife, but Juror Eight proves them wrong by showing the exact same knife sold at the same store. Juror Eight proves there is reasonable doubt by doing this, but many of the men refuse to believe it. Reasonable doubt was present so many times in the play, yet many of the men chose not to listen to all of the
Juror Three was the main antagonist of the story and was also the last one to change his vote to “not guilty.” Throughout “Twelve Angry Men”, he was very aggressive to anyone who did not share the same opinions as him. He stated this to Juror Eight after he was called a sadist, “Shut up! {Lunges at Eight, but is caught by two of the JURORS and is held. He struggles as EIGHT watches calmly. Then he screams.} Let me go! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” Also, it was very hard for Juror Three to change his mind. We can see this in the book and the movie. Although the facts he stated were all disproven, he would go back to them. Also, it was hard for him to change his mind because of what happened between him and his son. His son had punched him good
Some Heroes don't wear capes in the play 12 Angry Men juror number 8 is that kind of person in the play is About a Boy on trial for murder and a jury filled with different people trying to decide his fate while some jurors want to leave or don't care juror number 8 is a man who fights for justice juror number 8 represents the best of our American justice system because he is truthful gentle and strong. He is interested in and getting to the facts and seeing Justice served “there were 11 votes for guilty it's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first” (rose5). It might take a long time to reach a fair verdict but Juror 8 does not seem intimidated from the naysayers. Juror 8 even calls out juror
12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are the jury for an 18 year old accused of murder. The judge states in the opening scene that it is a premeditated murder in the 1st degree, if found guilty will automatically receive the death penalty. The 18 year old male is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade, in their home. The prosecutors have several eye witness testimonies, and all of the evidence that they could need to convict the 18 year old male. In the movie it takes place on the hottest day of the year in New York City. There are 12 jurors whom are to decide if the evidence is enough to convict the teen of murder in the first degree. In the first initial vote it is 11-1. The only way that the jurors could turn in their votes was if there was unanimous vote either guilty or not guilty among the 12 jurors. As the movie progressed the jurors ended up changing their minds as new evidence was brought to their attention by simple facts that were overlooked by the police and prosecutors in the initial investigation. Tempers were raised, and words flew, there was prejudice and laziness of a few of the jurors that affected the amount of time it took to go over all of the eye witness testimonies and evidence. The eye witness testimonies ended up being proven wrong and some of the evidence was thrown out because it was put there under false pretense.
Twelve angry men is a play about twelve jurors who have to decide if the defendant is guilty of murdering his father, the play consist of many themes including prejudice, intolerance, justice , and courage. The play begins with a judge explaining to the jurors their job and how in order for the boy to be sent to death the vote must be unanimous. The jurors are then locked into a small room on a hot summer day. At first, it seems as though the verdict is obvious until juror eight decides to vote not guilty. From that moment on, the characters begin to show their true colors. Some of the characters appear to be biased and prejudice while others just want justice and the truth. Twelve Angry Men Despite many of the negative qualities we see
The defense succeeded at instilling reasonable doubt in the jurors’ minds. A major difference between the defense and prosecution, as stated by Dershowitz, was that the defense relied on factual evidence and scientific experts while the prosecution utilized witnesses that casted a shadow of doubt upon the whole jury (Dershowitz 97). Dershowitz claimed the prosecution knew they had falsities in their case, but kept them in order to win the case (Dershowitz 96). In all, though many people viewed Simpson as a guilty man, the allegations of police perjury and investigative errors allowed the defense to exploit and capitalize on the faults carried out by the prosecution and ultimately implant reasonable doubts in the minds of the jurors.
The jury’s decision, however, was not based on evidence, but on race. A jury is supposed to put their beliefs aside and make a decision based on the information given during the trial. Jury members must do their duty and do what is right. I tried to do what was right, but all the other members of the jury were blind. They chose to convict because of skin color rather than actual evidence from the case.
make there decision, but in the end there was no way that the jury was going to believe a
In the play “Twelve Angry men”, the story line presents a variety of perspectives and opinions between twelve very different men. Some are more likely to be pointed out as prejudice, and others are more focused on reaching fair justice. Clearly, it is quite difficult for different people to vote ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ in unity when coming to a fair decision. In all of the twelve jurors, I have chosen Juror 3 and Juror 8 for contrast and comparison. I believe that Juror number 3 is a very opinionated man, with more differences than similarities comparing with Juror number 8.
Twelve Angry Men, is a play written by Reginald Rose. The play is about the process of individuals and a court case, which is determining the fate of a teenager. It presents the themes of justice, independence and ignorance. Rose emphasises these three themes through the characters and the dialogue. Justice is the principle of moral rightness or equity. This is shown through juror number eight who isn’t sure whether or not the boy is actually innocent or guilty, but he persists to ask questions and convinces the other jurors to think about the facts first. Independence is shown through both juror number three and ten. They both believe that the defendant is guilty until they both realise that they can not relate there past experiences with the court case. Ignorance is shown throughout all the jurors during the play, it is also brought out through the setting of the play.
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.
In a previous study, the researchers Michael and Garry have argued that eyewitnesses’ confidence of memory and juror’s corresponding beliefs about eyewitnesses’ memory recall could both be altered by simply switching the order in the question list (e.g., a low-to-high confidence order and a high-to-low confidence order). Back in the time, researchers’ main purpose of the study was surprisingly not on the accuracy of participants’ answers, but on how much confidence participants had for their responses. In this way, by conducting two versions of six-sets experiments, the data, researchers has collected, firstly proves eyewitnesses expressing more pessimistic and feeling less confident about their responses in a low-to-high confidence order of question than in a high-to-low confidence order of question. Secondly, the data also showed that the switched order would affect how jurors’ attitude on eyewitnesses. Specifically, jurors would tend to believe more on eyewitnesses who hold high confidence of their memory recall at the very beginning the experiment. All these results show that the ordering difference certainly affects jurors’ belief in the accuracy and reliability of eyewitnesses’ saying. Thus, by realizing the importance of ordering of investigative questions, the present justice system may reconsider
The book “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a book about twelve jurors who are trying to come to a unanimous decision about their case. One man stands alone while the others vote guilty without giving it a second thought. Throughout the book this man, the eighth juror, tries to provide a fair trial to the defendant by reviewing all the evidence. After reassessing all the evidence presented, it becomes clear that most of the men were swayed by each of their own personal experiences and prejudices. Not only was it a factor in their final decisions but it was the most influential variable when the arbitration for the defendant was finally decided.
Mention the pros and cons of our jury system and possible alternatives of it. Also, identify the group dynamics of the jury members
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.
The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in a population. The juror that seemed interesting is Juror #8, who was played by Henry Fonda. Juror #8, or Davis, is an architect, the first dissenter and protagonist in the film. He was the first one to declare that the young man was innocent and he managed to convince the other jurors to see his point of view. Durkheim states that when we respond to deviance, it brings people together (Macionis, 2013, p. 159). We affirm the moral ties that bind us together, which was seen in the movie. At first, almost all of the jurors were so bent on convicting the young man based on their feelings, but they then started to analyze the facts and they came together to make their final decision.