Theme Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men

Theme Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men
In 12 Angry Men, prejudice is one of the most themes in the play '12 Angry Men'. In this story,
several jurors serving in a murder trial show how their own prejudices influence their decisions as
they attempt to base their vote on their racist feelings towards the defendant. During their
deliberation, the main issue the jury faced was their interned prejudice. 12 Angry Men reminds us
that at its heart, racism is just a way of taking limited info and insisting that you know how
everything works because of it. Many jurors such as 3 and 10 allowed their inherent prejudice do
inform their guilty vote, and further discussions on the case. However, juror 8 who is initially
sympathetic to the accused, not because of the evidence, but because he pitied his poor and troubled
upbringing.
There is no Juror that displays more prejudice than that of Juror 3 as is he the most out spoken and
also the last to change his vote. He has no problem harrying the other jurors when they think
differently from him. As soon as the jurors moved to the deliberation room, juror 3 begins thrown
his influence in the weakest member of the jury who is juror 2 "Did [jurors] ever hear... So much
talk about nothing." despite of he had suggest to start voting first because the total idea in his mind
that the 'kid is guilty'. Throughout the play, juror three interrupts others in mid–sentence and attacks
their opinions, however, his attempts to break the jurors and evidence fail when in the end the votes
are
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

12 Angry Men: Persuasion In Leadership
James Le
English C102
Professor Scott
1 April 2017
Persuasion in Leadership
One of the most important skills people can build and gain is leadership. In the movie 12 Angry
Men, the leadership behavior challenge process was mentioned and illustrated visibly. With the
taglines "Life is in their hands; death is on their minds", the story is about the closing arguments in a
murder trial. 12 Angry Men are 12 members of the jury, and they must deliberate and make a verdict
of an inner–city teen's guilty. Among 12 members is remarkable a character called Juror #8, who is
quiet, simple and gentle; he sees all sides of problems and constantly seeks the truth through many
questions. Juror #8 not only has a strength tempered but also a compassion. Analyzing ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The main character Juror #8, above of all, is a man who wants justice to be done and will fight to
see that it is. Described as peaceful and compassionate, Juror 8 is focused on the truth of the case
and refuses to give up until the other jurors face that truth. It is through his persuasive abilities that
one by one, the other jurors change their initial vote from guilty to not guilty. He is like a sword of
justice to defend the truth and protect "we the people". After watching the movie, I figure out many
lesions that can help me in building the leadership skill. I will practice this skill and hopefully gain it
in

12 Angry Men: Movie
12 Angry Men In a world where the jury is the voice of the people's justice, twelve men sit in a
room poised to determine the fate of one boy's life. Did he do it? If he didn't, who did? Why would a
young man kill his beloved father with a switchblade knife? The moment that the jury–comprised of
twelve Caucasian men, abhorrent in today's society–entered the small, blank, bleak room, they had
already come to the conclusion that the young man was guilty as charged without deliberation. One
lone man stood his ground and had the guts to stand up to the others and profess that he believed the
man could not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt due to conflicting information. How could
he prove it?
Through verbal and nonverbal ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
He became incredulous and demanded that the juror who made the statement to revise what he said
and recognize that not all individuals from the slums are criminals. This is a prime example of
profiling.
Oral communication has played a huge factor in the deliberations in the jury room. Up to this point
each juror has conveyed his belief through speech. "A verbal message can be conveyed and a
response received in a minimal amount of time. If the receiver is unsure of the message, rapid
feedback allows for early detection by the sender and, hence, allows for early correction" (Judge,
371) Some jurors were eloquent in the way they relayed their reasonings to the others, and some
were very loud and abrupt and had little evidence to support their beliefs but relied purely on
prejudices, biases, and ignorance in an effort to get a quick response. These jurors also used this
opportunity to elicit any responses or feedback or make corrections to others' reasonings. Many of
the jurors relied on the oral messages that they received through the testimony of eyewitnesses in the
courtroom. When they regurgitated the information in the jury room, however, some of the messages
could have been, and probably were, distorted. This is why many people prefer to hear it "straight
from the horse's mouth." Others used the testimony to prove the beliefs of others wrong or to find a
reasonable doubt to vote not guilty.
The

12 Angry Men
Introduction:
Group dynamics and team behaviour cannot be only learned using textbooks and attending lectures.
It can be learned using various other sources like playing team sports and also by watching movies.
One such movie is 12 angry men. The movie states that 12 men from different background and
different ideologies are brought together as jurors to a murder case where an 18 year old boy is
accused. The movie follows where all 12 men come together to get a common decision together and
fulfil the task.
Issue:
The movie "12 angry men" focuses on a 12 men jury who are appointed to discuss on a murder trial
of an 18 year old teenager. The case appears to be a clear open and shut case. The decision was clear
but arguing nature of juror no 8

Twelve Angry Men Essay
Norms:
· Respect elders (e.g., the laborer is the self–appointed enforcer of good manners)
· The jurors had come to value a case based on facts, not prejudice or stereotypes. Those who upheld
this value (Juror 8 and the Juror 4) were respected and became leaders that were looked to for
guidance. The jurors that maintained arguments based on stereotypes alienated themselves from the
others.
· The decision has to be unanimous (hung jury was something nobody liked)
· No racial prejudices were tolerated (everybody turned their backs to juror 10 when he started
saying that "he knew people of these kind very well")
Processes:
The ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The critical turning points in the jury votes occur, not when there is passion and anger, but when
there is reasoned discussion, as the rational Juror 8 triumphs over the prejudices of his fellow jurors.
The facts of the case do not change, but the jurors come to see the facts differently, and change by
the process they go through. Despite the hostility and tension created in this process, the twelve men
end up reconciled, and justice is done.
Roles:
Role Explanation Portrayed by Reasons
Task Oriented Roles initiator–contributor suggests new ideas to solve group problem or new ways
for the group to organize the task Juror 8 (Henry Fonda) Suggested that the jury deliberate for at
least and hour information giver/seeker deals with information and facts about the group's task Juror
8 (Henry Fonda) · Produced an identical knife· Asked for the floor plan opinion seeker/giver deals
with the group's values regarding its tasks Juror 8 (Henry Fonda) Presented an in–depth analysis of
the facts of the case rather than a superficial viewpoint

Decision-Making In Twelve Angry Men
When discussing the topic of decision making, leadership may always be aligned with the
conversation. In the novel "Twelve Angry Men," twelve people are to make a decision that can
change the course of one mans life. We see this practice often with the American Judicial system.
Maybe leaving such a massive responsibility in the hands of our peers could be constructive or
destructive. Juror number eight is the first to speak up in the quiet deliberation room, after the first
vote. Leaving a lot of readers viewing the person as a saving grace. In all actuality, they were just as
unsure as their fellow peers. Juror number four is apparently striving to prove juror eight wrong
because he keeps bringing up the evidence, saying that they are facts. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
For example, juror eight is the one that spoke first. This would fit into being a benevolent leader.
This type of leader is one to encourage others, but juror eight is not the only one we see in this. Juror
nine, five, and eleven work with the group. This is not the only kind of leader we saw throughout
this novel. There are multiple solutions to every situation, and depending on how one would handle
it. Another type of leader that you may have heard of is a laissez–faire leader. In jurors two, six, and
twelve it shows that they are really just going with the flow. But jurors four, three, and seven are
complete opposites because they would be called autocratic leaders, which means they are
controlling. This is the type of leader that wants everything to go there way, no way else. Even
though there are three different types of leaders, there is only one type of leader that could change
all of the jurors minds. Obviously, they would be called the team leader. Even though everyone was
able to put in there thoughts and how they felt, the team leaders help put two and two together to
come up with a conclusion. These two jurors kept all the others on track and lead everyone in the
right direction. After hours of back and forth, they all finally come to a conclusion. Juror eight was
able to make everyone change their decision to not guilty, except for juror

Character Analysis Of 12 Angry Men
ED Begley
Ultimately shunned by the others, because of his loudmouth, narrow–minded bigot, extremely rude
and often interrupt people. Someone who feels that there will be no good outcome, this is a type of
man he is. Lastly he was ordered by jury's 4 to "sit down" and to "not open his loudmouth again
Gorge Voskovec
Jury's 11 that jury's 11 have conscientiousness personality, he always pay intention in every detail,
for example when he asking the question 'why that kid go back home after 3 o'clock' it shows that he
listened very well from jury's 8 opinion and theories. In addition he also introverts person because
most of the time in the meeting, he just being quiet
Robert Webber
This is the only juror that didn't really interesting about the case. This is because he just busy about
his own life compared to joined discussion on the table. He is marketing agency and so arrogant. His
personality would be narcissisms where is he like to makes people looking at him not for the quality
of the job. An example when he talked to 11th juror, he told that he is marketing agency and trying
to find everything that related to it. This personality always thinking that he is very good compared
to others. He tried to tell everyone about himself but not about the case. He also didn't focus at all
during the discussion because he is not really interesting
12 Angry Men
The play is set in a New York City Court of Law jury room in 1957. The play opens to the empty
jury room, and the Judge's

Examples Of Fallacy In 12 Angry Men
The movie 12 Angry Men is about the murder mystery in which a nineteen year old son kills his
father by putting knife in his chest. Then juries of 12 people discuss the case & decide the
punishment for the son. A lot of fallacies are there in this movie. 1. The first fallacy I consider in this
movie is the statement of 8th jury that the reason behind this murder is the area in the boy live.
According to 8th jury the murder just took place because the boy live in slum area & the atmosphere
of slum area force all the persons to do the same things like this murder. I think effect of atmosphere
must be there on any person but it can't force anyone to kill his father or take decision like that. This
is an example of hasty generalization. 2. I think the 2nd fallacy was vote by 11 persons in favor of
hanging of that murderer without any discussion. I didn't see this type of way to take decision by
liable persons. I know this case is straight forward with 2 witness who seen the murder but some
discussion must be there, because it is also possible that the way all the person see this case is
completely different with the case actually is. So because of decision without any discussion I found
it as a fallacy. 3. When 8th jury was against to all the others then all the jurors start to try to change
the opinion of 8th jury, then 1st turn was of 2nd ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The one thing also happen when old men said to 4th jury that he saw the sign of eyewear on that
woman's nose. Then old man asked to 4th jury that you can't see without these glasses then how can
a lady in night can observe a person perfectly without glasses with the distance of 60 foot. Also
when she is in sleepy condition. So without perfection of witness observation how can someone say
that boy is the criminal, there may be other person also. If we consider a person without any
perfection it will be unfair with him & also it is the question of that boy's life also because if that
boy's crime will be proved he will be

What Is The Purpose Of 12 Angry Men
In the movie "12 Angry Men" each juror has a different personality and each react differently to
each other. I have picked juror's eleven, eight, and three because juror eight and juror three are
basically polar opposites, but juror eleven see's both sides of the story. Juror number three is a circle
within a ten pointed star. The shape matches his personality because for most of the movie he was
the most aggressive person, and wanted the boy to be guilty. At some points he even started to yell
at the other jurors. "Now listen to me! You pulled a–real smart trick here, but you proved absolutely
zero. Maybe there are ten knives like that, so what?..." (12 Angry Men) At multiple times in the
movie we see juror three talk about his son

12 Angry Men Essay
The film 12 angry men was about twelve jurors and the case they were assign too. The case was
about a teenage boy murdering his father with a knife. The jurors job was to state their beliefs about
the facts of the case. In the film it showed social psychological concepts that displayed the juror's
opinions and beliefs of the case when it came to finding the defendant guilty or not guilty. The three
social psychological concepts in the film I chose to write about is prejudice, informational
conformity, and naïve realism.
Prejudice is a negative attitude towards people in a different group based only on their membership
in that group; it contains cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components. Several jurors in the
murder trial showed their own prejudice influences and how and it help their decision making as
they based their votes on the racist feeling towards the defendant. Personal prejudice was mostly
shown in the character's juror three and juror ten. Juror three showed his prejudice to those who live
in a lower social economic area he also showed his personal prejudice when he states that "the ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Juror eight showed naïve realism when it came to his decision in finding the defendant not guilty.
He was the first to disagree with the other jurors when they found the defendant guilty. Juror eight
continued to argue his opinion when it came to the defendant and he showed that he knew more
about the crime than the others. He goes into more details about the crime such as the train being too
loud for the old man to hear the body hit the floor. He then mentions that the old man could not see
the boy running out of the apartment because the man was old and walked with a limp. He also
gives more details about the knife and how anyone could go out and buy that same knife. Juror eight
argues until all the other jurors agree with him and they change their votes to not

Analysis Of The Movie ' Twelve Angry Men '
Twelve Angry Men
Introduction
The movie "Twelve Angry Men," portrays the story of twelve jurors from different walks of life and
how they came to a difficult decision regarding the life of an eighteen year old Puerto Rican
defendant. The defendant is on trial for premeditated first degree murder of his father. The scene
takes place in a New York City jury room. The evidence presented to the jury alleged the youth
murdered his father with a switchblade the night of the murder. The story began at the close of the
trial, as the presiding judge gives his final instructions to the jurors. The judge advised the jurors of
the charge, and let them know that if the defendant is found guilty it would result in a death penalty.
The judge releases the jurors to deliberate and make the difficult decision.
As the jurors leave the courtroom and enter the jury room, a sigh of relief seems to come over the
majority of the jurors as they all appear to be relieved to finally get to the decision– making process.
The room is a small room with no air–conditioning and quite insipid. A few of the jurors attempt to
make the room more comfortable. Some of the jurors are seen opening windows, and one juror
fumbles with a fan located on the wall overlooking the room. As other jurors muddle around the
room, they begin to become acquainted with each other and discussion of the trail takes place. Some
of the men were discussing their plans for the evening, or as with one juror, looking forward to a

Twelve Angry Men
Twelve Angry Men
Act I
Vocabulary
unanimous – complete agreement with no one dissenting refugee – a person who flees one country
and seeks safety somewhere else el – a train of the same design as a subway train that runs on tracks
elevated a few stories above street level. retire – to leave the open court to go to a private room
calculus – a complicated mathematical process belligerently – in a hostile or angry manner
monopoly – the exclusive ownership of a business switch knife – more commonly referred to as
switchblade, one whose spring–loaded blade is concealed inside the body of the knife proposition –
a deal; bargain bickering – arguing mugging – a physical attack to take money or goods from
another person breeding ground – a place ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
12. Juror Twelve is in advertising, and cannot conceive of people on any level other than images.
9. What is the cause of Three's anger toward all young men?
His anger toward his own son seems to be why he feels as he does. His son, who was beaten by his
father when he was young, knocked his father down as a teenager. Then he ran away from home and
has not seen his father since.
10. What does Ten's following comment reveal about himself? "How can you believe him, knowing
what he is? I lived among 'em all my life. You can't believe a word they say."
Clearly he is a very prejudiced person. He distrusts a whole race or class of people based on very
limited exposure.
11. Juror Eight says he had a peculiar feeling about this trial. What does he think was wrong?
Eight feels the defense counsel did not conduct a thorough cross–examination, and many questions
were left unasked.
12. The foreman asks the guard to bring in the switchblade knife. Why?
Juror Four says he feels that the jurors have a right to see the exhibits in evidence.
13. Juror Four questions the logic of Eight's premise that the boy did lose the knife. What is his
sarcastic question to Eight?
Four wants Eight to explain if he thinks someone else found the knife and stabbed the boy's father to
be amusing.

14. What dramatic climax occurs toward the end of Act I?
Juror Eight jabs a knife into the wall. The knife is identical to the murder weapon.
15. What proposal does Juror Eight make at end of the

Prejudice In 12 Angry Men
In many societies, there is a type of social structure that categorizes people into groups depending
on many factors. Those on the bottom look up to those on the top, who in turn, look down on them.
The latter is characterized in the book 12 angry men by reginald rose. Twelve angry men is the story
about twelve men who are randomly selected to be on jury of a mysterious murder case. The case
starts out with juror number 8 voting guilty. Conversely, the unanimous verdict at the end of the
story is not guilty. Within the story, there are some jurors whose judgement are clouded with their
own personal flaws, one of them being juror number 10. In Reginald Rose's Twelve angry men,
juror number 10's sense of classism and prejudice hinders the group's ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
From the very start, he assumes that the defendant of the case killed his father before they even
discussed the parameters surrounding the case. His preconceived opinion of the boy is detrimental to
the case at hand, all the while when the boy's life is at stake. However, his prejudice is only one of
his shortcomings.
Juror number 10's other fatal flaw is his sense of classism. Due to the fact that the boy was raised in
the slums, he automatically thinks that the boy is a thug. He says that there is not one of them who is
any good and that they are wild animals who are against them. His generalization with a classicist
mind set leads him to believe that all people who are raised in the slums are soon to be hooligans. In
addition, his stubbornness to accept the theories of the other jurors only crippled the jury.
In conclusion, juror number 10 has the decision to deem the defendant either guilty or not guilty and
his classism and prejudice affected his inability to make a fair decision as well as the group's ability
deliver a fair verdict by buffering the process of the jury's decision. In contrast to his mindset , he
succumbed to declaring a not guilty verdict because he has a reasonable doubt in mind. In most
cases, having a sense of classicism and bias only ends up in alienation for the individual which is
what happened to juror 10. Overall, juror ten is one of the few, yet problematic jurors who really

12 Angry Men Analysis
Lea Ismayilova The classic film 12 Angry Men details the power of group dynamics which can lead
to complacency, conformity, and lack of clarity in decision–making. Many concepts associated with
organizational behavior are epitomized in the film. The main character – played by Henry Fonda
and referred to Juror 8 and Davis at the end of the movie – is the only person who wants to at least
consider the innocence of the accused. The rest of the jurors have conformed to the opinion of the
most dominant, boisterous, and direct members of the group, who essentially serve as leaders and
hold that the accused is guilty. It becomes evident throughout the rest of the movie that many of the
jurors who agree to conform to the wants of the most outspoken and aggressive members have
hesitations about their decision, which highlights the power of conformity and group think (Robbins
et al., 2013). The initial vote is 11 guilty/ 1 not guilty (Juror 9); therefore, Juror 9 has to use his
persuasion skills to convince the rest of the jurors that there is a doubt about the accused's guilt.
Slowly and methodically, Juror 9 begins to poke holes in the prosecution's argument and show the
fallacies in the arguments offered. He demonstrates how the weapon used is common and easily
obtained; therefore, the fact that the accused has one in his possession does not imply guilt. Also,
Juror 9 shows that the timing mentioned by the lone eye–witness did not match up with the actual
events. Through

Analysis Of The Movie ' 12 Angry Men '
12 Angry Men is a 1957 American courtroom drama film adapted from a teleplay of the same name
by Reginald Rose. Written and co–produced by Rose himself and directed by Sidney Lumet, this
trial film tells the story of a jury made up of 12 men as they deliberate the guilt or acquittal of a
defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt, forcing the jurors to question their morals and values. In
the United States, a verdict in most criminal trials by jury must be unanimous. The film is notable
for its almost exclusive use of one set: out of 96 minutes of run time, only three minutes take place
outside of the jury room.
12 Angry Men explores many techniques of consensus–building and the difficulties encountered in
the process, among a group of men ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
3rd Juror is the last to be convinced and only changes his mind once he realizes that he is only
projecting his feelings about his own son onto the defendant.
4th Juror
4th Juror is a stock broker. He wears glasses and seems to handle himself with a very serious air. He
deals with the facts of the case logically and concretely.
5th Juror
5th Juror works in a Harlem hospital and says that he himself has lived in the slums his entire life.
This gives him insight into such details as the use of a switchblade.
6th Juror
A house painter, he is happy that the case continues as it means he doesn't have to work, but is
hesitant to put a potential killer back on the streets. He sticks up for 9th Juror, an old man, and
seems to be a respectful man.
7th Juror
7th Juror's main concern in the case is whether or not it will end before his ball game, for which he
has tickets. He sells marmalade and is generally indifferent to the case. He changes his vote to "not
guilty" simply because the tide of opinion switches, and he wants the deliberations to be over.
8th Juror
He is the only juror who votes "not guilty" at the first vote. He is discontent with the way the trial
was handled and wants them to discuss the evidence in greater detail. Met with much opposition, he
continues to advocate for the boy. We learn that he is an architect, by trade.

9th Juror
9th Juror is an old man. He respects 8th Juror 's passion and sense of justice and quickly comes to
his aid and becomes and

Compare And Contrast 12 Angry Men And Twelve Angry Men
Twelve Angry Men was written over half of a century ago but still baits thought as to one's true
character. Screening the process of twelve jurors determining a young boys fate in a murder trial, the
picture dissects individuals and begins to uproot prejudice and biases a few of the jurors were at first
uncomfortable to admit. The 1957 MGM film Twelve Angry Men provokes thought through twelve
on–screen characters by displaying their skills in empathy, personal priorities, and self–control.
Only one out of the twelve jurors originally displayed empathy toward a young man whose life was
at trial. That one man, who identified himself as an architect, reveals his name as "Davis", and acts
as the protagonist in Twelve Angry Men. Standing as Juror Eight, he argued on the suspect's behalf.
Although, instead of defending the boy, he admitted to being unsure of a guilty vote and thought that
his speculations deserved to be heard before the boy was put to death. As Juror Eight pressed to
reveal holes in the case's evidence, other jurors began to feel empathetic toward the suspect as well.
Juror Five professes that he grew up in the slums and represents how character is not determined by
where one is raised. In contrast, an ill old man proves to be bitter and declares a distrust of the boy
from the very beginning. Juror Ten fails to empathize with the defendant even as a person,
condemning him as "one of them" as one of his original arguments. This caused viewers to realize a
prejudice that was common in the jury room. The bias denounces any empathy that the few
stubborn, discriminatory men may have. Another juror to argue in favor of the prosecutors was Juror
Three. This individual discloses his family situation and the bad blood between he and his son. His
feelings toward his son seem to be projected onto the defendant as this man argues strongest and
persistently for the boy's sentencing. Juror Nine was the first to empathize with both Juror Eight and
the defendant. He aided Davis in causing speculation among the others. Failing to empathize with
the boy, many jurors disagree with Davis as he introduces conjecture in the beginning of the film.
Determining the fate of a young man did not seem to prove itself a priority

Film Analysis Of 12 Angry Men
INTRODUCTION:
12 Angry Men is a 1957 American courtroom drama film adapted from a teleplay of the same name
by Reginald Rose. Written and co–produced by Rose himself and directed by Sidney Lumet, this
trial film tells the story of a jury made up of 12 men as they deliberate the guilt or acquittal of a
defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt, forcing the jurors to question their morals and values. In
the United States, a verdict in most criminal trials by jury must be unanimous. The film is notable
for its almost exclusive use of one set: out of 96 minutes of run time, only three minutes take place
outside of the jury room.
12 Angry Men explores many techniques of consensus–building and the difficulties encountered in
the process, among ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
3rd Juror is the last to be convinced and only changes his mind once he realizes that he is only
projecting his feelings about his own son onto the defendant.
4th Juror
4th Juror is a stock broker. He wears glasses and seems to handle himself with a very serious air. He
deals with the facts of the case logically and concretely.
5th Juror
5th Juror works in a Harlem hospital and says that he himself has lived in the slums his entire life.
This gives him insight into such details as the use of a switchblade.
6th Juror
A house painter, he is happy that the case continues as it means he doesn't have to work, but is
hesitant to put a potential killer back on the streets. He sticks up for 9th Juror, an old man, and
seems to be a respectful man.
7th Juror
7th Juror's main concern in the case is whether or not it will end before his ball game, for which he
has tickets. He sells marmalade and is generally indifferent to the case. He changes his vote to "not
guilty" simply because the tide of opinion switches, and he wants the deliberations to be over.
8th Juror
He is the only juror who votes "not guilty" at the first vote. He is discontent with the way the trial
was handled and wants them to discuss the evidence in greater detail. Met with much opposition, he

continues to advocate for the boy. We learn that he is an architect, by trade.
9th Juror
9th Juror is an old man. He respects 8th Juror 's passion and sense of justice and quickly comes to
his aid

12 Angry Men Response
The setting of 12 Angry Men is a jury deliberation room where the jurors are and required to decide
the guilt or innocence of an 18 year old that is accused of committing first–degree murder by
stabbing his father with a switchblade knife. Witnesses were presented to give evidence of hearing a
quarrel; hearing a threat to kill, and have seeing the boy run away. Another witness swore to having
seen the boy stabbing his father from a window across from where the murder occurred. Eleven
jurors were convinced the boy was guilty and deserved the death penalty. One raised questions he
felt had not been asked or had not been pursued by the defense.
Three questions were raised for our consideration: In what ways would 12 Angry Men ... Show
Each "hearer" also interprets what he hears as a beholder. Consequently, if an English speaker, or
writer desires to convey a message, truth, fiction or nonfiction, entertainment, persuasion, evidence
of fact, he must use correct language, perhaps colloquialisms, be aware of the listeners, their
education, culture, motivation and attention. The written and spoken language can be used to
deceive as well as to inform. Advertisement, celebrities, leading preachers, politicians are used to
provide a single perspective, not thorough information leading to a reasoned conclusion. As citizens,
it is essential to be "Critical thinkers who seek to draw intelligent conclusions" (pg. 3) whether as
jurists, voters, parents, students, teachers, workers, managers, attorney. It is important to be able to
discern between opinion, propaganda, facts, truth, error, and purposeful deceit. We elect people to
speak for us at many levels. We need to be able to comprehend what we are hearing and be willing
to utilize all the skills of critical

Ethical Issues In Twelve Angry Men
"Twelve Angry Men"
Introduction:
"Twelve Angry Men" a play in jury room in The United States in 50's written by Reginald Rose is a
story about an eighteen year boy from the ghetto who is on trial for the murder of his abusive father.
A jury of twelve men is locked in the deliberation room to choose the fate of the young boy. If all
facts are against the boy and he is considered guilty they will send him to die in the electric chair.
This play turned into a movie in 1957 the producer was Henry Fonda he played the lead role.
Stakeholders of the movie:
The Judge and the 12 Jurors are the stakeholders of the movie these people are from same country
having different backgrounds. Juror 1 (Foreman) his responsibility is to keep the jury organized ...
Many ethical flaws are seen in this movie as we come to know about the jurors that some of them
are not serious about the case, everyone has its own priories than the case and compare it with own
life than investigating about facts. Like juror 6 is happy that he doesn't have to go to work juror 7
main concern for the case is whether it will be over before his ball game match most juror says that
he is from ghetto, these people are of double standards. The 3rd juror has personal conflicts with his
son so he thinks that the boy can kill his father no one analysis the case on the base of evidence they
consider the boy guilty lack of communication between jurors is seen, on the base of their thinking
they are giving their votes evidence are not analyzed, but the juror 8 put himself in the boys place to
understand his condition and convinced other jurors by communicating and explaining everything.
The 8 juror entered in the trail with open mind and he encourages others to do the same. This movie
shows that anything is not

Twelve Angry Men Juror 8 Analysis
Justice or Freedom In the drama Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, juror 8 does a good job in
persuading the other jurors to listen and reconsider the evidence. He uses his rhetorical appeals to
captivate the other jurors attention. He gains an authority towards the other jurors which makes them
trust him more. Juror 8 deconstructs the testimony and evidence with his rhetorical appeal to make
the other jurors consider the innocence of the defendant. First, Juror 8 establishes his credibility to
support his arguments. He becomes the authority to the other jurors. " I want to call for a vote. I
want eleven men to vote by secret ballot. I'll abstain. If there are still eleven votes for guilty, I won't
stand alone" ( page. 11 ). This is the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Now No.8 tells No.9 he can say what he wants to say about the old man for the reason he lied. No.9
say, " This is a quiet, frightened, insignificant man who has been nothing all his life, who has never
had recognition – his name in the newspapers. Nobody knows him after seventy–five years. That's a
very sad thing. A man like this needs to be recognized. To be questioned, and listened to, and quoted
just once. This is very important" ( page.16 ). Juror 8 tells juror 9 it is okay to say your own opinion.
All the other jurors feel comfortable saying their own opinions because juror 8 voiced his own.
"Look this boy's been kicked around all his life. You know, living in a slum, his mother dead since
he was nine years old. That's not a very good head start. He's a tough, angry kid. You know why
slum kids get that way? Because we knock'em on the head once a day everyday. I think maybe we
owe him a few words. That's all." ( page. 5 ). No.8 is trying to make people feel bad for the boy.
He's trying to say that they shouldn't convict him because he hasn't had the best life so he needs to
have the opportunity to live the rest of his life doing something that makes him happy. Juror 8 is so
powerful he can make all the other jurors say their own opinions. Because of his pathos and his
strong ethos the other jurors will listen to his logical appeal about the case. Third, juror 8 uses his
logical appeal in the case to show the other jurors

Examples Of Reasonable Doubt In 12 Angry Men
One of the fundamental themes in the film 12 Angry Men is the idea of reasonable doubt.
"Reasonable doubt", as explored in the film, is the concept that you should not vote guilty if there is
"reasonable doubt", no matter how sure others on the jury are. Often when an individual does doubt
a pre–conceived thought, similar to the blame of the defendant in this case, they are frequently met
with hate and cynicism. 12 Angry Men emphasizes the importance of fighting for one's beliefs. One
of the possibilities in this film is that many of the jurors are arguing as a result of their
misunderstanding of what a "reasonable doubt" is. Juror #3 always talks about how you can't
"prove" something or how you could possibly "know" something. The fact is,

Juror 8 12 Angry Men Essay
In "12 Angry Men," the murder case of a 19–year old is being decided by 12 jurors. In the opening
scene, a near–unanimous decision is reached at a guilty verdict by all the jurors except juror number
8. Throughout the movie, through use of rhetoric, juror number 8 attempts to convince the other
jurors of the innocence of the defendant. A thorough examination of the evidence he presents can
show why this goes on for two hours, rather than a shorter period. The first argument presented by
juror 8 is a "proposition of value" argument. Before examining the factual evidence in–depth, he
examines the defendant's upbringing. He believes that the defendant had been "kicked around his
whole life" and because of this, the jurors "owe him a few words." This argument is a presentation
of the morality of their decision. The evidence presented is that the defendant had a hard life, the
connective presented is that those with an upbringing similar to the defendants have an unfair
disadvantage, and the conclusion is that they must discuss the case further before reaching a
conclusion. This causes a reaction of disapproval from other jurors, such as juror 10, who says "we
don't owe [the defendant] a thing." Juror 8's first argument also presents a fallacy of a hasty ... Show
Juror number 8 attempts to convince juror number 3 through a "bandwagon appeal" fallacy. He
points out that juror number 3 is the last person still not convinced there is reasonable doubt ("you're
alone") and that he must make arguments in favor of the defendant being guilty, or change his
answer. The connective is that since everyone else is in favor of a not guilty charge, juror number
three must become in favor of it as well. This fallacy proves to be useful, however, as juror number
three finally slams his fist to the table, and a not guilty verdict is

The Consequences Of Jutigment In Twelve Angry Men
In society, we have an obligation to our community to defend it by using judgment to determine a
person's innocence or guilt. It is a civic responsibility to make an informed decision that is
determined based on evidence to help come to a logical conclusion. This essay argues that judgment
in Twelve Angry Men is addressed by the jury who think rationally against a 16 year old kid facing
the death sentence.
It looks at the gender and ethnicity of the jury and suggests that the environment the jurors are
placed in forwards their own judgment on themselves, making judgment become an empathetic
experience.
The placement of 12 men in a jury shows inconsistency towards female's input upon what judgment
should be made for the accused. Inserting 12 men together only evokes testosterone against one
another affecting their critical thinking and causing drama. For Juror, 7 judgment is a fast process
and is addressed in the drama as Rose (121) states that, "7th Juror, Listen, I'll tell you something. I'm
a little sick of this whole thing already. All this yakkin's gettin' us nowhere so I'm going to break it
up here. I'm changing my vote to not guilty. 11th Juror, What kind of man are you? You have sat
here and voted guilty with everyone else because there are some baseball tickets burning a hole in
your pocket".
The drama is now directed away from the accused of murder and now towards Juror 7 that shows
irony towards the relevance of importance. It is from the example above we see

Psychological Interpretation Of Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men is a 1957 adaptation of Reginald Rose's original teleplay. The film takes place in a
deliberation room where twelve jurors must decide the verdict of an 18–year–old who has been
convicted of first–degree murder. Eleven of the twelve jurors believe the boy is guilty in what seems
to be an open–and–shut case. However, juror 8 votes "not guilty" and suggests that the jury
discusses the case in thorough detail. As the deliberations slowly unfold, the re–examined evidence
brings the case in a different light, leading to a unanimous "not guilty" verdict by the end. The film
touches on themes such as justice, prejudice, innocence, and doubt. 12 Angry Men is a powerful
film because it shows the working of the American Judicial system and also emphasizes on
democracy. Additionally, the film integrates social psychological concepts that can help better
understand why the jurors behaved the way they did. From numerous psychological theories, the
film best depicts minority influence, prejudice, groupthink, and group polarization.
Minority Influence
The lone dissenter's ability to influence the entire group is first seen with the initial vote. Eleven
jurors vote "guilty," while one lone juror, juror 8 votes "not guilty." To the others' dismay, Juror 8
insists that the men re–examine the evidence before sending a boy off to die. The other jurors assure
juror 8 that he will never change their minds. However, juror 8 tells them he does not want to
change their mind; he just

12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men–Influencing Other Group Members
This movie was great to see again and to experience all the different dynamics that were occurring
amongst the 12 jurors. The time frame in which this movie takes place is not too different than what
we experience today in our judicial system. The major differences today would be we do not
discriminate based upon age, race or gender. All three of these factors would influence how the
jurors would interact with one another and would eventually have a major impact on the final
verdict. Juror 8 was so successful in convincing the other 11 jurors for two simple facts. He
demonstrated assertiveness and use of reason. While his peers and the foreman fell into a group
think mentality from the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Juror 11 was quiet through this portion of the movie and did not utilize any type of influence on the
group. Juror 12 did not mention specific reasons why he thought the boy was guilty, but during the
entire movie he was always joking about his work and trying to derail the groups progress.
Once the group completed this juror 8 asked for a secret ballot. He stated he would not participate in
the vote, and if all 11 jurors voted guilty he would follow suit. At this exact time the shift of power
moved from the foreman to juror 8. Also, at this time the group moved from the storming stage
towards the norming stage. As the votes came back all but one vote was guilty. This action set the
group towards the next step of performing. The other jurors felt there was more to the guilty verdict
than they experienced from the onset of the deliberations. Juror 8 at this moment solidified his
leadership position by requesting the foreman to ask for the knife and the floor layout of the
apartment. As it happens juror 8 was able to cast doubt amongst all the jurors by obtaining the same
knife the boy supposedly killed his father with. Next, juror 8 walked off the distance the eyewitness
(Who had a stroke a year before) had to walk in the middle of the night to see the defendant leaving
his father's apartment. Then the group asked

Movie 12 Angry By Movie Review
In this essay I will be an analysis of group communication using the movie 12 Angry Men.The
movie 12 Angry men is a movie about a jury made up of 12 men as they deliberate the guilt or
acquittal of a defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt. They go through many different problems
during the deliberation.
The movie starts off with all 12 of the jurors in a room. Nobody knows anybody. Everyone friendly
introducing themselves and making conversation. Trying to get to know one another. They knew
they had to be in a room together all day, so they tried to make the best out of it. They were all
meeting because they have to determine whether the defendant is guilty or innocent. Before they
started to deliberate they set some group norms. Group ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Everyone is sick of hearing what he has to say, so they all just leave the table with disbelief and
anger. What was once accepted was now shunned.
The group doesn't seem to be cohesive at all because they don't know one another. Cohesive means
closely united. Usually friends in a group act this way. The 12 jurors started off very productive. The
foreman took the first vote to see who thinks the defendant is guilty or not guilty and 11 men of the
jury voted the defendant is guilty and the last juror voted not guilty. Everyone started to question the
man that voted not guilty. They asked him multiple questions on why he felt that way. After, juror #8
the one who said not guilty gave his opinion slowly but surely the other juror started to change their
minds. The productivity started to rise and they started to focus more on their task, which if figuring
out if the defendant is guilty or not guilty. Because the cohesiveness is moderate their able to
perform their highest productivity.
Most of the decision was made based on voting. For example, they started off the meeting with
voting and everyone gave their opinion. At first, they thought voting was a good idea because
everyone was agreeing accept this one guy and then he told them why he voted for what he voted
for. Then, others started to change they mind and they can't leave the room unless the group comes
to an agreement, so some of jurors

Essay about 12 Angry Men Persuasion Techniques
Who are "Those People"? The poor/underprivileged.
Persuasive Methods:
Logos: Appeal based on reason or logic. Logical reasons or examples/the logic used to support a
claim (induction and deduction); can also be the facts and statistics used to help support the
argument.
Juror 8:
asked the jurors to discuss this for just an hour; won't "send a boy off to die without talking about it
first"
made each small point of his persuasion very easy to accept and as logical as possible so none of the
rest could easily object to it
Juror 4:
a stockbroker who refuses to budge until he is presented with sound reasons for changing his mind
Ethos: Appeal based on the reputation and character of the speaker. The source's credibility, the ...
Similarity: Find Similarities and point them out. Show similarities between you and your prospect,
customer, or donor. Show that your thoughts, ideals, social class, and appearance are alike.
Juror 9:
noticed that another juror wore glasses just like one of the witnesses because of the marks on his
nose
Juror 5:
a man who was reared in a tough neighborhood slum, and who sympathizes with the plight of the
accused and thought about if he was in the same situation, and how many people would jump to the
same conclusion because of where he is from
Storytelling: Stories allow people to persuade themselves. A story will lower a prospect's resistance,
make complicated things easier to understand, and perk up their emotions.
Juror 11:
a foreign–born watchmaker focuses the jury on the beauty and responsibility of the American
judicial process
Juror 12:
often strays off course with advertising stories and slogans
Analogies/Metaphors: When you can relate your scenario to something that the prospect already

accepts as true.
Juror 8:
presents a knife identical to the murder weapon––a weapon that the jurors were certain was

Twelve Angry Men: Relative Evidence
Statement of Facts "Twelve Angry Men" is a fictional story which tells of story of jurors
deliberating over if the teenage son who was accused of murdering his father. The evening of the
murder the defendant and his father had an argument. The father hit the son like he did many times
in the past. After this encounter the defendant left the apartment. At approximately at midnight
witnesses state they saw the stabbing and hearing the defendant yell, "I'll kill you." and running
down stairs. The defendant testified he was at the movies, but when questioned by police he could
not tell the police any titles or a plot of a movie he supposedly saw. The case then goes to the jury.
There were differing opinions, some heated debates, and demonstrations ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The store keeper testified that he sold the defendant the knife. The store keeper identified the knife
and stated, "it was the only one he had in stock." Which was proven not to be as unusual as
originally thought by the jurors. USCS Fed Rules Evid R 401, 402. The jurors look into the
defendant prior criminal record. USCS Fed Rules Evid R 401. It is determined in the prior criminal
record he stole a car, been arrested for mugging and though he stabbed someone in the arm. USCS
Fed Rules Evid R 401, 405. The defendant was sent to a reform school for stabbing someone, the
defendant's arrest record shows he was picked up for "knife fighting". USCS Fed Rules Evid R 401,
405. The jurors look into the defendants background of being abused by his father starting at a
young age, from a bad neighborhood and broken home. USCS Fed Rules Evid R 401, 404, 405.
Application Of The Rules Of

Analysis Of The Movie ' Twelve Anger Men '
Case Background:
In this case it explains what was going on through the movie "Twelve Anger Men" and then it
explains the group–thinking. The Group–thinking theory from its beginning had been the most cited
endowment to the decision–making study. It focused on 7 factors given by Mitchel and Eckstein
which were cohesiveness, insulation, lack of a tradition of impartial leadership, lack of norms
requiring methodical procedures, homogeneity of social background and ideology, high stress from
external threats and hope of a solution better than the leader's, temporarily low self–esteem induced
by situation factors symptoms of groupthink, are relevant to the juries decision–making.
Case Questions:
In your experience, have you found that decision making groups tend toward groupthink? If so,
what factors contributed to this tendency? If not, what factors helped prevent it?
In my experience, I have found that decision making groups do tend toward groupthink. Not only
considering the 7 reasons that Mitchell and Eckstein had provided, its that sometimes those groups
don't try to explore any different solutions to the issues they are there to address. Instead of
replacing the people they look for for the jury they should look add some new people with a
different perspective than the ones we have now and have different upbringing to the groups. If the
perspective is different across the board the decision–making circle it will allow the people learn
about the ideas others have for the

12angry Men
12 Angry Men paper
Influence
Like power, influence deals with the capacity to impact the behaviors of others. Influence, however,
arises directly from one's behavior toward others. There are 8 methods you can use:
Foreman –giving options, being likeable, listening to others
1. Coalition building: seeking alignment with others Asking everyone what they thought when he
gave everyone the story about the woman. Comparing kids juror #2 and #8 seeking sympathy to
show how kids can be ungrateful #8 Involved everyone in discussion and made changes as
suggested (speed it up anyone can walk faster than that) One juror looking at the other juror – did or
didn't the old man see the boy moving out the house? ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
judicial system and the "task" facing the jury:
Knows the man better than anyone here.....
Multiple jurors Going over and over each detail of the case
8 is more effective because he remains calm, precise, used precise calculations , logical thinking,
visual demonstrations
shouty guy less effective and was able to be pushed to threatening which dis–proved him.
Very good at disproving all objections or setting up reasonable doubt,
Very good at going through all the points and creating reasonable doubt.
Respecting everyone whether he agreed with tem or not – now the onus is on him to prove that boy
is guilty.
_______________________________________
9. The accused, or defendant, is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty. The jury must decide
"beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty. 10. The verdict must be unanimous.
Anything other than a unanimous conclusion on the part of the jury–either guilty or not guilty–will
result in a "hung jury." If and when the jury announces that it cannot reach a unanimous decision,
the judge will declare the trial to be ended. At that time, the state prosecutor can decide to retry the
case with a completely new jury. 11. At the time this film was made–the mid–1950s–juries tended to

be dominated by white males. Women were issued automatic exceptions and people of color were
excluded because of racial/

Stages Of Group Development In Twelve Angry Men
Is this a group? Why?
Yes, this is a Group. Because – It comprises of 12 jurors ( more than 2/collective identity ) – who
must decide the guilt or innocence of an accused murderer. ( Common Goal or Interest) The dozen
need to pass a unanimous decision for the case ( Interdependence )
Stages of Group development – Tuckman's Model
Forming ('Testing the water') – At the beginning of Twelve Angry Men, the judge told the jury that it
was in their hands to find the facts and that the future of a boy was in their hands because the
teenager had to go through trial to prove his innocence. During the period of time preceding the
trial, the jury members had good manners and were very kind to each other. For instance, they
commented about the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The jury started analysing evidence closely. However, the argument was still present as the racist
juror made more foolish comments, and the other group members got upset with him. At that time,
the jury was able to see the issues more clearly and realized that their goal was to find a verdict by
discussing all the facts and making a decision about the case. Furthermore, the jurors learned to
examine the facts without stereotyping the individuals involved in the case. The members who felt
this way were the eighth and fourth jurors. These two members were respected and became leaders
that guided the other group members. A major influence on the success of the norming phase was
the fact that these two group members developed effective leadership skills. Indeed, these leadership
techniques helped the group become successful when making a consensus. The norm was that group
members could not argue because of personal biases. Performing ( Decision making )– At this point
in the life of the group, members are able to assume a wide variety of roles and be constructive in
their interactions with others. In fact, their level of comfort with themselves and with others has
increased. An example from the movie occurred when the old man remembered the appearance of
the female witness and provided information about marks

Twelve Angry Men
Oftentimes in life, people are faced with situations in which they must work together as a group,
with the intention of solving a particular problem. This is seen throughout "Twelve Angry Men" as
the jurors collaborate, in an attempt to find a verdict for the murder case. Even though these people
have never met each other before, it's necessary for them to cope with one another and their
thoughts, so that they can come to an agreement. In order to come to a conclusion, the jurors had to
grow as a group through the five stages of development. Stage one is typically known as the forming
phase, in which the group tends to look towards the leader for guidance, in an attempt to keep things
simple and avoid controversy. Mostly throughout the beginning, ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
After the jury had their time to share their opinions, groups based on their decision started to form.
Jurors slowly started to have a reasonable doubt in their mind and change their opinion. In the
beginning all but one, juror no. 8, felt that the boy must have been guilty. Since most of jurors were
uncomfortable with each other in the beginning they grouped together because they felt it was right,
but as the case progressed they started to see what is right and group with those who supported
them. It came to a point where juror no. 3 was "[all] alone," (Rose 29). Every other juror grouped
together in support that the boy who was being trialed was not guilty, in which led to connections
being formed between the jurors. Even through all of the convincing and effort put into having juror
no. 3 change his opinion, they were not able to make any progress. Juror no. 3, being an extremely
opinionated man, nothing was going to change his mind so the jury had to wrap up their vote.
Having the jury wrap of their discussion and come to a final vote begins the fifth stage of
development. The jury is going to submit their final decision and say goodbye. Not much is said
because there is still disagreement between the two groups of jurors. Before juror no. 8 leaves he
hopes that "maybe in a few months, [juror no. 3 will] get some sleep," (Rose 30). That was his way
of saying

Bias In 12 Angry Men
The movie 12 Angry Men, directed by Sidney Lumet, introduces twelve jury members each one
coming from a different background. The experiences and personalities of these men play a critical
element in the first majority vote in deciding the verdict of guilty or not guilty. Juror #3, #10, and
#11 were very influential in that their opinions and thoughts on the case were determined by their
own personal bias. Therefore, a person's behavior, opinions, and thoughts are reflected on how that
person feels on the inside. Juror #3 is against the boy that is being tried and very biased towards
him; this results in how he acts during the meeting and what his thoughts are regarding the case.
This bias is due to an argument he had with his own son who punched him in the jaw and ran away
from home: "I've got a kid...when he was ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
I hate tough kids! You work your heart out." We can get a lot from this juror in that he condemns
teenagers and has resentment towards them. Since the boy was born and raised in the bad part of the
city, it gave Juror #3 more reason to vote guilty because he is biased against people who live in the
slums. Juror #10 divides and segregates people stereotypically into 'them' and 'us'. 'Us' being
middle–class or rich people living in the city, and 'them' being poor people or of a different skin
color or race, born and raised in the slums. Since the boy lived in such a place he was obviously a
victim to violence and crime so, Juror #10 was biased against him from the beginning. Also, the boy
being Hispanic placed him on the discriminatory list of what makes a criminal. This is further
proven when juror #10 says: "They don't need any real big reason to kill someone, either. You know,
they get drunk, and bang, someone's lying in the gutter... most of them, it's like they have no
feelings." Because he believes all of this, this juror is second to last in changing his vote. Juror #11
is from Europe and has faced injustice and many hardships along the

Analysis Of The Movie ' 12 Angry Men '
12 Angry Men is a movie centered around a murder case and the 12 men that are in charge of
providing a verdict for a kid charged of first degree murder of his own father. In this movie, the
characters have to face a long and grueling procedure of figuring out how to charge the kid after a
six day long trial and hours long deliberation between the jurors. The film of 12 Angry Men has
several key psychological aspects to it that can be accurately and summarily described. In the
movie, the jury has to come to a unanimous decision on the boy's innocence or guilt as stated by the
judge in the beginning of the film and that any decision that is not unanimous will result in a hung
jury where they will most likely schedule for a retrial. While most of the characters of the jury seem
adamant about the eventual result of the kid and how his fate should pan out, juror number 8 decides
that he is going to vote for not guilty in order to have a reasonable discussion about the trial instead
of immediately sending the defendant to the chair to be executed. This is met by the initial outrage
of the group at the thought of someone going against what was the norm of the group, which is very
uncommon for someone to do especially in a murder trial where people tend to be very opinionated
and set in stone about their ideas. This unflinching and unresolving attitude is shown throughout the
movie as juror number 8 slowly and methodically uses both central and peripheral route persuasion
to

12 Angry Men Film Analysis
12 Angry Men is an example of the role cinematography can play in creating the atmosphere of a
film. This film is set almost entirely in one room, but is still able to construct extreme tension like
few other films have been able to do. It establishes this partly through the brilliant dialogue and fiery
performances of its twelve actors, but also through powerful use of cinematography that helps in
creating the gradually–festering atmosphere of the film.
The opening scene of 12 Angry Men is a low–angle shot of a courthouse. The camera begins to pan
through the courthouse, following people it runs into along the way and finally ends up in the
courtroom where a jury is hearing a murder trial of someone who is barely a legal adult. The jury ...
As the day drives on, the temperature rises and the jurors are sweating more profusely. As each juror
takes off his outer layers of clothing to adjust to the rising temperature, his stance on the defendant's
innocence switches from 'guilty' to 'not guilty,' and gives them a lighter colored costume like that of
Juror #8.
The last third of the film was shot below eye level, with recurrent close–ups of the jurors' faces that
draw the audience into the scene as if they are seated at the table with the jury. The ceiling is seen in
many shots and the walls close in, amplifying the claustrophobia of the atmosphere and swelling the
tension. The jurors are drenched with sweat and practically always shouting, and every emotion of
their performances are captured with facial shots that fill the frame. It is so intense that you can
almost smell the sweat and confusion in the room by the end of the shot, when the points and
arguments of the film are tied together and brought into view. As the final jurors holding on to a
'guilty' stance reveal their real reasons for upholding a guilty verdict, the film hits its climax and the
men break down. The very last shot in 12 Angry Men is a wide–angle shot on the outside of the
courthouse. The wide–angle shot is perfect closure. The jurors have reached a verdict, the men are
disseminated, and we can all finally breathe again. This openness in this shot represents a relief in
the tension that we saw rise in the previous shots. This film

Twelve Angry Men Essay
"Its not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others". Twelve Angry Men is more than a play, it
is a reminder of our social responsibility. Discuss.
Twelve Angry Men is a legal drama, written by Reginald Rose during the heightened period of
1950's McCarthyism. The didactic play presents a cross section, examining 1950's America during a
period of immense suspicion and uncertainty. Roses' play reminds us of the importance of
responsibility and integrity, emphasising qualities such as courage that aid in preserving justice. The
play examines the power of the "lone voice" and places a special emphasis on the serving of justice
over the quest for truth through a central plot and strategic framing. The idea of time versus ... Show
Rose utilises a central plot and setting to ensure the jurors remain focused on deliberating and the
audience's engagement is limited to the deliberation process. The central focus creates a narrow
spectrum in which the didactic themes of the play can be reiterated and emphasised. The play's juror
8 emphasises that "the boys life is not a game", constantly refocusing the jurors to the deliberation
process when they digress. Through juror 8 Rose further highlights the importance of the juror's
roles and their responsibility as civil servants. This also serves as a reminder to society to remain
integral to their responsibility as civilians and thus Rose's non fictional undertone is carried through
his fictional plot and characters.
The play is limited to a timeline in which Rose aims to convey his didactic message and hence the
importance of social responsibility. The time elapsed in the play is synonymous with the amount of
time the audience spend viewing, to create a sense of realism and dire importance. Within this
period Rose addresses the issue of time versus responsibility as apathy within jurors serves to
undermine the justice system and compromise the mechanisms of justice. "This better be quick" is a
notion adopted by juror 7 serving as a justification behind his impulsive "guilty" verdict. The clock
on the wall acts as a motif that exposes apathetic jurors

12 Angry Men Group Therapy
12 Angry Men Group Analysis By reviewing the film 12 angry men, the project was to assess the
importance of group therapy and dynamics portrayed. Within the case, the jurors attempt to have a
unanimous verdict in the murder trial around a Latino male that has been accused of stabbing his
father to death The group heightens with the understanding that with an accusation of voting for
guilty require the death penalty. The deliberation of the case provides adequate characteristics as the
group begins to unfold. We watch the dynamics through their interactions, juror's personality,
background, and interactions began to take shape. Through the film, we are able to understand the
interpersonal approach to group therapy. The main focus is on the client's interpersonal relationship
with other individuals. Furthermore, this group acts as a therapy group where the judge works with a
group of twelve jurors. The escalating case follows the group psychotherapy steps during the
deliberation.
Group Dynamics Group dynamics refers to a ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
From the film, juror number three started to monopolize the ending of the case talk about his
personal situation with his son. During that period of the film, the movie was centered on his
situation. Different times throughout the film, these two jurors wanted to take over the decision to
the jury as to accomplish their personal interest. In addition, juror number eight shows natural
leadership within the group keeping everyone in the group together. We also see that juror number
one wants to become a leader for this group but becomes ridiculed by the other members. The
shame that juror number one faces is power and a universal experience, yet because of the painful
effects group leaders still need work dealing with these feelings (Livingston, 2006, p.

Theme Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Jenny Richardson

More from Jenny Richardson (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Theme Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men