The movie 12 Angry Men depicts a typical scene today: twelve jury members meeting to discuss a case presented to them and determine guilt or innocence of a young man accused of killing his own father. Usually the jury room is a place for discussion and debate, but the evidence has swayed all but one of the jurors into voting guilty. The group in the movie is a jury of 12 men with various backgrounds and age groups. They were placed in a deliberation room where the entire move took place.…
3. “I’m going to kill you,” and the kid screamed it out at the top of his lungs. Don’t tell me he didn’t mean it. Anybody says a thing like that the way he said it, they mean it.…
Twelve Angry Men is a classic movie depicting how one determined leader can alter an entire crowd. Through dedication, curiosity, and the pursuit for the truth he is able to persuade a group of twelve to second guess even themselves. Within this heterogynous group are a dozen different personalities - some of which were leaders and most of which were not.…
1.How do you think you might have acted as a juror in this case ? How would you had interacted ?…
Democracy and the right to serve as a juror are a great privilege and responsibility which is not to be taken lightly, as see n…
As we walked into the jury room, after hearing the case of Commonwealth v. Miller, I had already decided how I would vote and, honestly, I determined I was not going to be swayed. We swiftly chose a foreman by appointing the one, who had been given the jury instructions, to that position. Next, we read the jury instructions out loud, in order to remember and understand the definition of each charge. Debate over the meaning of the instructions ensued for a short amount of time before we dove into determining guilt or innocence. Everyone was given a chance to discuss the case and, personally, I felt comfortable entering the discussion and debating the case. After discussion, we voted and were evenly split among guilty or not guilty. Next, we…
In today’s fast-paced world we often find ourselves making hasty, split-second decisions on the seemingly unimportant matters with which we are faced. According to The Critical Thinking Handbook “...critical thinking evaluates reasons and brings thought in line with...” our best sense of what is true enabling us come to insightful conclusions on which we base our actions. In Twelve Angry Men a group of twelve ordinary citizens are faced with an important choice whose consequence is the fate of a sixteen-year-old boy accused of killing his father. Initially deemed an open-shut-case, throughout the play we witness the jurors, under the direction of Juror 8, slowly break down the evidence and testimony on which they later base their final verdict. Each juror with his unique approach to reasoning raises important arguments, suggesting both the innocence and guilt of the accused and further adding to the complexity of the case. In Twelve Angry Men, three pieces of evidence that proved crucial in shifting the jury in favor of acquittal were the murder weapon, the old man’s testimony, and that of the woman who claimed to have seen the murder from across the street.…
I believe in the beginning the 2 main jurors who were basing their decisions on prejudice were mainly Jurors #3 and #10. Juror #3 more based on prejudices of young men, particularly because he had such a horrendous relationship with his own son, I feel like this case really hit him close to home and really affected him in a personal way. I believe he let his feelings got in the way of his logical thinking and was practically projecting the anger he had towards his son towards the young men on trial, who had been accused of a horrible crime against his father. Juror #10 was more prejudice of the young suspects race, making statements like; “You know how they are,” and “They’re all the same, all born liars”.…
In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginad Rose the twelve jurors have to decide if a young boy is guilty or not guilty. The boy is accused of the murder of his father. His fate lies in the hands of the twelve jurors. Will he get the death penalty? Will they prove that the young boy is not guilty? Will he get to live the rest of his life? There are many different versions of this story including William Friedkins film version produced in 1997. Friedkins film version is easier to comprehend because it includes more detail than Rose’s original play version of Twelve Angry Men. Friedkin goes more in depth in his version of the story unlike Rose. Its more effective to the reader because of the message its telling us.…
Josiah Bont- to what degree should he be excused given his own history of abuse (200 words)…
The American jury system, wherein citizens are judged by their peers, is one of the most democratic in the world. Nonetheless our system is far from perfect. There are many dangers in a system in which humans are asked to make decisions that could mean life or death for another person. Bias ranks amongst these dangers for it can affect the way jurors interpret testimonies and facts. Indifference is another factor; it too, can heavily affect a juror’s thinking. Personal feelings and experiences can stand in between a juror and the attainment of truth. The American jury system is intrinsically flawed in that it relies on intrinsically flawed humans to make life or death decisions…
Twelve Angry Men is a play about a young boy on trial for murdering his father. If the boy is found guilty, he will be sentenced to death. The jury men are very aware of this fact, most are perfectly fine with sending this boy to die as one man searches for the empathy of his jury peers. One by one the jury begins to sway toward the not guilty plea, as every fact thrown into conversation gets disproved. Now, one lone juror faces not the pressure of his peers but the pressure of his emotional attachment to the case to see that the boy be punished. This finally leads to Juror #3’s inevitable surrender of not guilty.…
Twelve Angry Men is a very interesting play about an unfortunate young man, who was convicted of killing his dad. The worst part was, the young man was only nineteen, and his life was just starting. The jurors listened to all the evidence, then came the hard part, making the decision: guilty, or innocent. Eleven jurors said guilty and only one said innocent. There was a lot of peer pressure involved. I decided to write about different peer pressures three of the jurors used. The three jurors I picked are juror #10, juror #7, and juror #8.<br><br>The first juror I want to write about is #10. Juror #10 was using a lot of sarcasm, whenever he was trying to prove his point, or prove someone else wrong. I think that this method of peer pressure is one of the most powerful ones. I believes so, because when you are embarrassed in front of 11 other people (in this case jurors) you do not know, really lowers your self-esteem. It may lower it to the point where you will say guilty, eve though deep down inside, you will feel that the person is innocent. This is a quote I picked to illustrate sarcasm skillfully used by #10: "You're a pretty smart fellow, aren't you?" I think this one sentence could really put anyone down, and make anyone feel embarrassed, and maybe stupid. <br><br>Another juror I decided to write about is #7. He was muscle flexing most of the time. Muscle flexing means, he was raising his voice, even screaming at everyone, as if he was the boss. Whenever #8 was trying to present reasonable arguments to the rest of the jurors, #7 would start screaming, even jumping out of his chair, calling seven crazy. Although a lot of evidence was really convincing, he tried to prove it unconvincing and use sarcasm to convince other jurors otherwise. One example of #7 using sarcasm would be this quote: "Why don't we have them run the trial over..." I think this quote clearly shows that juror #7 is trying to convince other jurors, that court's evidence proves the young man is…
The film “12 Angry Men” is a 1957 drama consisting of a dozen men on jury, who attempt to reach a verdict involving a teenager in a murder case. A guilty verdict was initially predicted, but the jury members start questioning and reasoning the testimonies given in court. Was the boy being accused of stabbing his father really guilty? All the information regarding the timing of the train, the timing of the murder, and the testimonies did not add up. Through much debate, a complex voting process, and many concepts learned through SCOM, the jury managed to attain a not-guilty ruling due to the inadequate testimonies and facts gathered.…
Imagine having to decide a young boy’s fate who is accused of murder in the first degree. This is the case in “Twelve Angry Men”, the prize-winning drama written by Reginald Rose. Some jurors address relevant topics, while others permit their personal “judgments” from thoroughly looking at the case. After hours of deliberation, the jurors reached the decision that the boy is not guilty, due to the fact of reasonable doubt. While few jurors are motivated by their respect and determination for the justice system, Juror 10 is motivated by his personal prejudice.…