Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Personal insight of jurors in 12 angry men
Roles of each juror member in 12 angry men
Importance of the jury in 12 angry men
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Personal insight of jurors in 12 angry men
In the film 12 angry men, 12 jurors are put in a room to discuss a first degree murder case. Each one has a very different characteristic than the next, but each contribute to the stories plot line equally. Each juror can be classified as the average “every day” person; the silent but analytical, the loud and stubborn or the mediator. The one juror that is more like myself is Juror #11. I find myself to be most like him because he is unbiased, empathetic and is analytic.
Juror #11 seems to be an excellent juror because he is unbiased, about both the other juror’s opinions and the case. He is also concerned about finding the truth to the whole case and not just leaving as soon as possible to go home. An example of this is when he questions the other jurors about the evidence and testimony told by witnesses. He is then questioned by another juror to why he wrote “guilty” but is questioning that the boy is not guilty. This is where he states “I don't believe I have to be loyal to one side or the other. I'm simply asking questions”. This shows the audience that he is not taking sides until he is convinced the man is guilty or innocent and that he just wants to finish his job in a respectable and proper manner. Juror #11 argues to Juror #7 “Who tells you that you have the right like this to play with a man's life?” His quote proves the point that he wants to do the job right and to deliver justice, not to side on one side because of a hunch or 1 piece of evidence. I find myself to have the same characteristic because in situations where I would have to pick sides, I try to be unbiased and not side with one party until I am sure that they are correct or enough evidence is displayed that I can be satisfied to assume the party is correct,...
... middle of paper ...
...with. Another piece of evidence was the elderly woman across the el train platform who saw the murder and swears it was the boy but, it is not easy to identify faces, especially through 2 cars of the train where she would be a far distance from the actual murder apartment. Finally is the point that Juror #11 stated, that the boy would not return 3 hours after the murder, he would most likely try to escape somewhere far to avoid being charged, not walking right back to the crime scene. It can also be said that he was lying about going to the movies since he did not remember the film he saw but, when faced with fear, stress or anger, their mind can go blank. An example of this is in war when soldiers train for months and months but when finally see the bloodshed, they forget everything they learned in basic training. From this, I say the 18 year old boy is not guilty.
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.
As the story unfolds, he tries to rush the case and continues to call for votes. He then becomes more frantic when he sees that the other jurors are starting to become less convinced of the defendants guilt. When any of the other jurors contradict Juror 3, he becomes aggressive and insults them commenting, "you're crazy" (241) or "We don't need a sermon" (224). Similarly, if another juror states something trying to prove the minor is innocent, Juror 3 immediately negates their claim and tries make it seem as if they couldn't possibly know what they were talking about. In another situation where the jurors are disputing whether to believe a witness account made by an old man, Juror 9, who is also an elderly man, describes why the evidence may be skewed. Juror 9 explains that he believes the witness may have accidentally
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...
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.
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
The movie 12 Angry Men depicts the story of 12 men serving on a jury who must determine the destiny of a young man charged with murdering his father (Lidz, 1995). This study represents the analysis of 12 Angry Men movie by applying Tuckman's Stages, to determine if these men acted as a group or a team, as well as analyze the dynamics of this group of men as they weighed the confirmation, demonstration, and personal agendas.
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
Seemingly juror ten exists not only for conflict, but to demonstrate to the audience that personal biases may affect the way the jury thinks. Being one in a room of twelve individuals, juror ten truly withholds the essence of an angry
Juror #2 was a grandpa, and was new the whole jury idea. He never said much, but when he did he was always very insightful. Though he starts with the boys guilty, throughout the hour he was willing to listen to what others had to say, particularly guy # 8. He was the one who asked the other men, to think more about the crime scene. When Guy#8 reenacted the scene he was the one who took the time to see how long it took for the witness to get to the door and see the boy running. Also he studied on how the boy used the knife, and where he got such a knife. Has a grandson who looks like fat Albert. Had a small Argument with guy #10, but never really had much conflict with others. As they come to closing with the votes, he ended up changing his vote to not guilty.
Twelve Angry Men brings up a few issues the criminal justice system has. The jury selection is where issue number one arises. “A jury of one’s peer’s acts as an important check in cases where a defendant fears that the local justice system may have a prejudice against him, or in corruption cases in which the judiciary itself may be implicated” (Ryan). Deciding one 's future or even fate, in this case, is no easy task, as depicted by the 8th juror.
The quietness and patience juror 8 displayed caused tension amongst the other jurors creating careful and adequate (Flouri & Fitsakis, 2007, p.453) deliberations. Juror 8 's circle of influence (Covey, 2013) directly influenced the other jurors’ circle of concern (Covey, 2013) when forcing them to question their thought process. Juror 8 chose a collaborative negotiation (Budjac Corvette, 2007, p. 63) method when deliberating with the other jurors immediately handing down guilty verdicts for the defendant. Furthermore, juror 8 used his ACES to help the other jurors cross the creek (Budjac Corvette, 2007, p.
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”.
Twelve jurors deliberate on whether an eighteen year old boy is guilty, or not guilty on stabbing his father.
Some people believe that the old witness and the woman’s testimony are totally right. The second one is that the minority should be subordinate to the majority. Only juror #7 adopted this norm. But most people believed that only the decisive evidence could send the boy to the electronic chair. If the reasonable doubt exists, you cannot say “he is guilty”.