The movie, 12 Angry Men, is a movie about a twelve-man jury and their way of deciding whether or not a boy who was accused of killing his father was guilty or not guilty. The juror I focused on in the movie was the eighth man on the jury and also was an architect. The architect was the only man to vote “not guilty” on the boy in beginning of the movie. The architect was an intelligent and caring man and his first vote of “not guilty” proves this. The other eleven men automatically just assumed the boy was guilty of killing his father but the architect thought long and hard about the fate of the boy and decided that he couldn’t live with himself if he decided the boy was guilty and the boy was actually innocent. The other jurors were aggravated that the architect chose differently because most of them were just ready to leave and the only way they could do that was if all the men agreed on the same verdict. The architect just didn’t think that the investigation took much thought and that it was conducted fairly. “What if the two eye witnesses were wrong” was his main point for why he chose “not guilty”. The architect’s initial …show more content…
A few of the men changed their vote and the vote went from eleven thinking guilty to now be that nine men were voting guilty. The argument from the architect showed that he was a very intelligent, caring man who believed what he thought was right and that he wouldn’t change his mind just because some of the men were growing angry at him for thinking differently. The architect even went as far as doing his own investigating on the case to check out the crime scene and playing out the facts as they were told in court. Eventually, as time goes on the architect starts getting other jurors to be on the same page as him and they too started to think harder on the
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.
The jurors took a vote and saw the ratio at eleven for guilty and only one for not guilty. When they repeatedly attacked his point of view, his starting defense was that the boy was innocent until proven guilty, not the opposite as the others had seen it. After Henry Fonda instilled doubt in the mind of another juror, the two worked together to weaken the barriers of hatred and prejudice that prevented them from seeing the truth. The jurors changed their minds one at a time until the ratio stood again at eleven to one, this time in favor of acquittal. At this point, the jurors who believed the defendant was not guilty worked together to prove to the one opposing man that justice would only be found if they returned a verdict of not guilty. They proved this man wrong by using his personal experiences in life to draw him into a series of deadly contradictions.
In the play Twelve Angry Men, a tough decision rests in the hands of twelve jurors as they discuss whether or not a minor is guilty of murdering his father. What is originally seen as a very black and white case becomes more complicated when the jurors begin to question if the evidence is enough to convict and execute a teenage boy. In particular, the author, Reginald Rose, includes a juror who unequivocally believes that the defendant is guilty. We soon find out that Juror 3 harbors a grudge against his own son, who ran away years ago. Juror 3's convictions are not fueled by the case's evidence, but instead by his want for revenge.
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
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.
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
In all criminal cases presented in the courts of the United States, a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The law requires the jury to release the defendant unless it is fully convinced of the defendant's guilt. Many times it may be difficult for a jury to come to such a significant conclusion. This is clearly evident in the movie 12 Angry Men. At first, each juror is convinced of his verdict except one. Yet of those who are convinced that the boy on trial is guilty, all change their vote except one.
...ted by peer pressure. At the end of the play, after all the other jurors joined up with Juror 8, Juror 3 was the only one who still voted ‘guilty’. This time, Juror 3’s perseverance collapsed and he finally voted on ‘not guilty’. Juror 3 is obviously not as brave as Juror 8 as to stand up for his singular thought on the crime. A reason for this might be because he doesn’t have the intelligence to use good arguments to prove his stance.
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.
...a unanimous vote of not guilty. The final scene takes place signifying the "adjourning stage". Two of the jurors, eight and three exchange the only character names mentioned during the film. The entire process of groupthink occurs in multiple ways that display its symptoms on individual behavior, emotions, and personal filters. These symptoms adversity affected the productivity throughout the juror's debate. In all, all twelve men came to an agreement but displayed group social psychological aspects.
It was not a good idea to take a vote without a discussion, because the other jurors do not know other opinions that might change their mind. The eighth juror voted not guilty because he did think about all of the details that happened the night of the murder. It turned out that the jurors had over looked a few
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
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
Especially in the start when juror#9, the old man votes non guilty in order to extent his support for the protagonist, juror#8. He did that because he felt that juror#8 was the only one standing against the decision and if pitches in, the jury might face it difficult to convince two people, therefore will start looking at the evidences more deeply and clearly. The protagonist influenced every single person in the jury one after the other with his logical capability. He was consistent with his thought of discussing the evidences so that justice is given to the boy. He corners few people in the jury with his logical ability, so that the statements about the case which the jury believed as facts, goes haywire. He as a single person had minority influence in many occasions in the
...irrespective of what majority says. Your participation has the ability to change what others think completely. Due to Jury number 8's participation, the ratio of 1:11 votes(not guilty:guilty) changed to an over all vote of not guilty. Communication doesn't happen non-verbally right at the beginning stages of the group development. If the movie was “11 Angry Men” with Jury number 8 excluded, the other jurors would've done just given vote once, and decided the fate of the boy. Why did the group make its decision not guilty? The answer is plain and simple: “Due to group participation and interaction.” If you were in the place of juror number 8 or any other juror, would you've spoken for the boy or not?