The jury are to declare him guilty only if there is no reasonable doubt.
The twelve men sit in a hot room all day, with rising tempers and clashing personalities, and the juror who was once standing alone manages to convince all men to reverse their opinion. Society has certain expectations when it comes to the jury.
The jury is expected to make impartial decisions, based on facts alone, without any prejudices, outside influences or personal issues influencing their decision. As the play unfolds, we see a struggle between good and evil, a struggle against prejudices, racism, and a struggle for compassion. Whilst Juror 4 is basing his votes on logic and facts, and is voting fairly, Juror 3 is too caught up in his own personal issues to be fair, and keep calm.
Juror 4 shows integrity and uprightness throughout the play, even though he is second last to switch his vote. This is possible because he bases his vote on the evidence given, without overshadowing it with prejudice, emotions, or other issues.
He sticks to the facts, and gets on with business. He furthers this point later on saying, Gentlemen, this case is based on a reasonable and logical progression of facts. When he is directly asked by Juror 8 how he can be so sure that the boy is guilty, and have no reasonable doubt, he is the only one that is able to clearly answer him. The movie 12 Angry Men focuses on Jury deliberations regarding a case involving a boy accused of stabbing his father to death. Over the course of the movie one dissenting juror convinces the others that the case is not as obvious or clear cut as it seemed in court.
He ultimately manages to change the minds of the other jurors until they find the boy not guilty due to reasonable doubt. One involved the credibility of the witnesses.
- 12 Angry Men Sociological Analysis?
- How to Write a Research Paper on 12 Angry Men.
- revising your narrative essay!
- Integrity in “Twelve Angry Men”?
- 12 Angry Men Essay.
- Integrity in "Twelve Angry Men".
The woman who lives across the street testified that on that night she looked out her window and to the window of the boy and his father. Although the train passed between the two apartments at this time, it was shown that it is possible to see through the windows of the train and still see the opposite apartment. The only testimony from nearby neighbors was that they heard the father and son arguing. The merchant who sold the murder weapon to the boy testified that it was unique and one of a kind, although Juror 8 bought an identical knife he purchased during their lunch break. Regarding the viability of the evidence, it was shown that due to the height of the boy compared to the height of the father and the angle of the slash that killed the father, it was unlikely if not impossible that the boy could have done it.
Handling of the Case as a Juror As a juror in this case, I would have listened to the evidence and likely been swayed in much the same way as the jurors who thought the boy guilty at the beginning of deliberations.
Free 12 angry men Essays and Papers
I would have held off making a final judgement until deliberations were finished. However, my first vote would have been not guilty due to reasonable doubt raised by the problems listed in section 1 that occurred during the trial. In any given situation, there will be a possibility for anger, from any one of the innumerable ways to look at it. In the case of the young man, on trial for murder, in 12 Angry Men we are given over to view not the process of a jury, not a literal jury deciding a case of a literal life, instead, we are hearing and seeing twelve different choices our minds can make; twelve different paths our anger can take.
Other topics to examine are:. What begins with an initial flash response, eleven men convinced of guilt "from the beginning", against one, small voice saying, "I'm not sure", is, certainly, the embodiment of our own process.
12 Angry Men Analysis
Many of us, like Juror 3, played by George C. Scott, are quick to react, jump to a conclusion, explode with anger, and lash out. Our other emotions can become involved in such outbursts as well, carried, as it were, off by the strongest and loudest. But, the jury, as our own minds, has a conscious, has another way of being angry.
For dramatic affect a lot of emotions and emotional changes occur rapidly.
- 12 Angry Men Essay | Cram;
- burleigh wilkins essay can terrorism be justified;
- (DOC) 12 Angry Men – Paper | Jesse Mainiero - leigacelpump.tk.
- michel de montaigne essay of the power of the imagination?
- critical incident analysis teaching essay.
- More Free Essays Like This?
The deliberation room acts as a contrived setting for the interaction of 12 people from very different backgrounds. All 12 have to stay in the same room and have to make a yes or no decision. In reality the likelihood of the paths of any of two jurors crossing is remote.
12 Angry Men
To expect the reversal of long-held prejudices in the matter of 2 hours seems impossible. Besides that, prejudice has no basis in logic so logic does not change the emotion of prejudice. A hung jury appears much more likely.