The play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose the jury decides whether or not the boy is guilty of murder in the first degree. Juror Eight votes not guilty because, he needs more evidence. Juror Eight is compassionate, when all the other jurors voted the boy guilty. He tenderhearted proclaims that voting him guilty isn’t easy he implies, “Look this kids been kicked around his all his life.” Juror Eight doesn't want to just send the boy off to prison without further investigation. Juror Eight also shows compassion when none of the twelve jurors were in favor of he the boy being innocent. Juror Eight kindheartedly stood up for the boy and explains, “To many questions were left unanswered.” He is also the only juror to not vote the boy guilty …show more content…
All twelve jurors discussed if the boy really did go to the movies the night of the murder. He logically comes up an idea regarding the boys alabi he mentions, “I'm not trying to make anyone except it i'm just saying it possible that nobody did see him sneak into the movies.” As all twelve of the jurors are trying to figure out if the old man was lying about hearing the boy run down the stairs. Juror Eight questioningly comes up with a new idea, he thinks the old man is lying about seeing the boy he explains, “For the kid to be guilty the old man downstairs must be a liar.” Juror Eight perceptively comes up with an idea leading to the murder which leaves more room for reasonable doubt, he re-enacts the old man walking to his door then to the hallway saying, “I want to try this thing, let's see how long it took him. I'm going to pace off twelve feet the length of the bedroom.” He also expresses honesty. As all jurors were discussing the boys alabi to see if the boy really snuck into the movies, at the time of the murder. Juror Eight genuinely explains that he himself snuck into the movies when he was younger he said, “Who didn’t sneak into the movies once or twice when they were
Drama, often defined as the visual form of literature, can be seen as a mix of both realistic and unrealistic elements. Through drama, playwrights can develop plays that reflect our society and societal issues, consolidating different aspects of the real world to indirectly communicate with the audience. Reginald Rose's 1954 play, the 'Twelve Angry Men' is an excellent example of this, with recurring themes of racial bias, discrimination and social inequality woven deep into the plot, allowing him to convey his messages accurately and indirectly to the reader. The 12 conflicting titular characters each represent different ideologies and perspectives, which can greatly reflect how they react towards the situation faced.
All the jurors went into an exclusive room to discuss whether the defendant is innocent or guilty of the crime. The climax of the play is Juror #8 was beginning to show proof of evidence that defendant did not murder his father and some of the jurors began to switch their vote. Juror #8 began to discuss more evidence that did not link the defendant to the crime. The falling action in the play is that almost all the jurors decided to switch their vote from guilty to innocent except Juror #3. Juror #3 was obstinate about switching his vote from guilty to innocent because he believed that even with all the evidence that was shown the defendant is still guilty in his eyes.
It’s the hottest day of the year in New York City, and 12 men, who were put on a jury, are locked into a room to discuss the case of an accused 18 year old murderer. In the opening scene, the judge states that is it a first degree murder and if found guilty the teenager will receive the death penalty. The 18 year old is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade. The 12 jurors must decide if there is enough evidence to convict the teen of murder. When the initial vote is taken is it 11-1.
The purpose of Reginal Rose’s in the play 12 Angry Men is to give the reader the idea of how different the court system was different from then to now. This also emphasizes the essence of bias between these twelve individuals, therefore this caused conflict between one another. This play was between the (1920’s-2002’s) but more towards the 1950’s. During this period the court system was very complex in terms of the judicial system helping the prosecutor’s rights.
We have the coincidence that the man was murdered just when the train was passing. Due to the proximity of the house and the noise the train emits the old man could not hear anyone scream. The man also argues that fifteen seconds after hearing those words and watching the father's body fall he watched the young man running down the hall. With the help of the building's plans the jury number eight showed that it was impossible for the man to see the young man running down the hallway only 15 seconds after hearing the scream according to the distance between him and the hall.
8th juror appeals to their sense of pathos and pity by saying “this boy’s been kicked around all his life… He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.” While this has nothing to do with the case, he hopes to appeal to their humanity in order to get them to give him a chance in these deliberations.
Every one of the legal hearers assume the conspicuous blame of the litigant, whom we learn has been blamed for slaughtering his dad. The twelve take a seat and a vote is taken. The greater part of the members of the jury vote "Guilty," with the exception of the Eighth Juror, who votes "Not Guilty," which, because of the prerequisite of a consistent jury, constrains them to talk about the case. The members of the jury respond brutally against this contradicting vote.
The jurors have to sort “facts from fancy” and come to an unanimous decision meaning they all have to vote guilty or not guilty. The juror I am going to discuss is the 8th juror, he was the only person to vote not guilty. I will discuss his character, how he effects the course of justice and how does he illustrate the theme of the play. I believe that the 8th juror is the most interesting juror of the twelve because in a way he is the perfect juror and represents the boy’s good luck. Number 8 plays a very important role in the play because he is the one juror that voted not guilty and stood up to the others, in his own words: “It’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first”.
Juror Ten announces his intentions very early in the play. He speaks loudly and forcefully from the beginning, clearly showing his racism and prejudice towards the boy. Juror 10 quickly votes guilty and asserts that the defendant cannot be believed because “they’re born liars”. Additionally, he claims that the “kids who crawl outa those places are real trash.”
For this reason, all the jurors had to sit down in the court room and discuss into more detail about the murder case. Having 12 jurors is a faster and easier way than having 1 juror to come to an agreement if the boy is guilty in this murder case. The first juror is the foreman. Outside of the court, he is an assistant football coach. The second juror is a bank clerk.
This process continues throughout the course of the movie, and each juror’s biases is slowly revealed. Earlier through the movie, it is already justifiable to label juror 10 as a bigoted racist as he reveals strong racist tendencies against the defendant, stating his only reason for voting guilty is the boy’s ethnicity and background. . Another interesting aspect of this 1957 film is the “reverse prejudice” portrayed by juror
In 12 Angry Men, the author creates a very long and challenging process for the jurors to decide on an unanimous verdict. At the beginning of the play, Juror Eight is the only one that votes for not guilty. Because he does not know what he thinks, he asks that they review all the facts and testimonies. When Juror Eight
He’s slipping through our fingers!” Juror 8 told Juror 3 that he wants the boy to die because of his own desire rather than the actual
The 1957’s movie 12 Angry Men, is about twelve jurors who have to decide whether or not the young boy is guilty for murdering his father. All but one juror said guilty. In the movie the jurors restate arguments made by the witnesses and the evidence found, to help justify their decision on if he is or isn’t guilty for killing his father. During this deliberation emotion, language and sense of perception is used to decide upon their verdict. This allows us to question, do we make decisions based on our emotion?
Early in the movie all men, except one juror, number eight, agree that the boy is guilty without a doubt. In this case normative influencer took place which is going along with the crowd in order to be liked or accepted. Juror eight was the only person from the beginning of the deliberation to the end of it that thought the boy was innocent and he had to basically break down all the men to understand why it was true. Also some of the men did not care if the boy was a person who deserved a fair trial because in their eyes he was not like them and they knew people like his kind to be