The way each particular character speaks gives us an inside view of their life and…
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.…
The movie Twelve Angry Men provided an example of a work group and a service group, because they had the goal of finding the man innocent or guilty on behalf of the organization of the court system and assisted a worthy cause that helped people outside the group. The judge said, “One man is dead. The life of another is at stake. If there is a reasonable doubt in your minds 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. Whichever way you decide, the verdict must be unanimous. I urge you to deliberate honestly and thoughtfully.” This is the goal that the men are striving to achieve and what makes them a working group and the man they are helping makes them an example of a service group.…
Authors use the way characters act or think to tell the reader how the characters are feeling.…
Throughout all these texts we see internal emotions and conflicts develop or become less evident, this happens as we learn more about the characters…
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.…
This was a meeting of 12 jurors to deliberate the fate of an eighteen year old boy. The meeting was more of a verbal structure. The jury foreman was the team leader of the meeting. I feel as though the beginning of the meeting started strong with his decision of voting for guilty or innocence that lead to a hung jury. There was no planning really or discussing the trial at the beginning, and the jurors did not work together in a timely manner. The presentation of evidence was to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the teen was either guilty or innocent. A closer look at the evidence presented brought good points as to why the boy was innocent. The example in which the knife was used, the question being brought up about if the teen really lost the knife used to kill his father before going to the movies was even possible, or did he really even go to movies were all valid points that needed to be revisited. Also the demonstration of the elderly man being able to make it to the door in fifteen seconds to see if the person going down the stairs the man’s son or someone else clearly helped to head the meeting in a different direction. Along with the demonstration it was discovered that the elderly man would not have been able to hear clearly with the noise from noise from the L train. Most important of all was the question of the lady across the railroad tracks in another apartment really sees the murder take place while the L train was passing in ten seconds without her eyeglasses. All these points helped to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the boy was innocent. Finally all the jurors agreed on a not guilty plea and presented it to the judge.…
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…
In 1954, an understated motion picture was released in theaters. Despite its invigorating content, the movie made very little money and was virtually unknown to the vast public for decades. About 25 years ago, this movie was rediscovered, and has since become an American classic.…
12 Angry Men, by the American playwright Reginald Rose, was originally written for television, and it was broadcast live on CBS 's in 1954 (12 Angry Men, n.d.). In 1957, Rose wrote the screenplay, which he co-produced with the actor Henry Fonda (12 Angry Men, n.d.). The play was originally inspired by Rose’s own experience on a jury for a murder case in New York, New York. Rose did not want to serve as a juror for the case, however he said “the moment I walked into the courtroom … and found myself facing a strange man whose fate was suddenly more or less in my hands, my entire attitude changed" (12 Angry Men, n.d.). Rose wrote the drama based on his own experience and what was produced was an exciting and interesting play that investigates human nature and the relationships of group dynamics.…