12 Angry Men Essay

Essay On 12 Angry Men
"12 Angry Men"
The play "12 Angry Men" by Reginald Rose reveals human nature, personal experiences, and the
men's effect on the justice system. The play brings out how as humans we jump to conclusions
without thinking things through, we don't like to take the time and look over things, and we use our
own experiences and use them to help influence our thinking. In the play, everyone but juror number
eight jumps to conclusions about the young man on trial. Number eight helps guide most of the other
jurors to look over the case and discover what really happened through him being unsure and not
jumping to conclusions. Still, some of the others stay stuck in what they think happened. The jurors
use their own past experiences to shape what they...show more content...
Juror number five grew up in slums. He was younger compared to all the other jurors, yet had
more under his belt than others. He had different life experiences than most of the men. At first,
he believed that the young man, but after eight had pointed a few things out he was one of the
first to change his mind. "Eight. Have you ever seen a knife fight. five. Yes, I have. . . in my
backyard. On my stoop." (12 Angry Men). Juror five has seen certain things in own life, such as
knife fights. This helped him become more helpful while the group of men deliberated on what
went down during the crime. His own personal experience helped them proved details in the
crime to be not reliable. This affected the justice system by giving the young man who came from
the same pace as five a better chance at a new start. Juror Five wasn't the only juror who used his
life experience and human nature to help the young man and justice. Juror number eight was a well
thought out man. He was independent, not afraid to be different, and liked to look through things
very carefully unlike other jurors. In the beginning of the play number eight stands alone. He isn't
sure if the young man is guilty or not. Instead of just jumping to conclusions and voting guilty he
takes his time and votes not guilty unlike everyone else. "Five. You're all alone. Nine. It takes a
great deal of courage to stand alone" (12 Angry Men) This quote is from when number eight went
from being alone to number three
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

12 Angry Men Essay
Reginald Rose's play '12 Angry Men' entirely takes place in a small New York City jury room
where 12 male jurors have convened to decide the verdict in a homicide case. The verdict of this
case will decide if a young boy will be charged with murdering his father, with a switchblade knife,
on the first degree. The film shows us nothing of the trial itself except for the judge 's perfunctory,
almost bored, charge to the jury where he reminds them that they must base their unanimous
decision of "guilty" or "not guilty" on whether or not there is "reasonable doubt" in their minds as to
the guilt of the accused. His tone of voice indicates the verdict is a foregone conclusion. We hear
neither prosecutor nor defense attorney, and learn of the...show more content...
After all, they 're about to send an eighteen year–old kid to the electric chair, and Juror #8 doesn 't
want to do that without having a conversation first. He brings up certain details of the case that have
been bothering him, but the other jurors want him to stop stalling so they can get on with the Guilty
verdict. Among the main sources of evidence that the jurors have found compelling include the
testimony of two key witnesses. The first was the testimony of the tenant living below the apartment
where the defendant's father had been killed, during which he stated that he heard the defendant say
that he would kill the father and that he saw him soon afterwards fleeing the scene of the crime. A
juror counters the evidence by stating that the boy claimed he had been at the movies while his
father was murdered, but couldn't remember the name of the movies or who was in them. The
second key witness was a woman, who was living across the street, testified that she saw the boy kill
his father through the windows of a passing elevated train. Aside from the considerations mentioned,
the jurors also took it to be significant that the defendant had, that night, had an argument with his
father, which resulted in the boy's father hitting him twice, and that the boy has an extensive list of
prior offenses, including trying to slash another teenager with a knife. Finally, the murder weapon
recovered from the scene of

Essay On 12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men; A Celebration and Criticism The modern trial system has been reshaped and molded
over centuries although it maintains built on a democratic foundation. Although structured in order
to provide constitutional rights and freedoms to all people, their remains flaws in it's system. The
film, 12 Angry Men celebrates the many accomplishes in providing individuals rights in its structure
while highlighting and criticizing its flaws. The film, 12 Angry Men highlights many of the great
things about the American justice and jury system. The film shows the beauty in having a jury
needed to be unanimous in order to make its final decision. With people capable to not vote guilty
because they have merely reasonable doubt opens the floor to healthy arguments and discussion.
This really allows...show more content...
The film also discusses how truly democratic the system is with the practice that fellow peers are
asked to judge a person's innocence or not. It explains that the jurors truly have no personal gain
or loss from the verdict but rather can freely decide the verdict of the defendant with their own
true beliefs on the matter based on the facts. The film, 12 Angry Men, also looks at the flaws in
the American justice system. A strong flaw they press very strongly is how prejudice can and
will always take a place in the courtroom to some varying degree. Although the voir dire process is
meant to help eliminate jurors who would have biases towards the case, it can't eliminate all jurors
who can't separate the facts from personal beliefs and that's very dangerous for the defence. In the
film it became evident that a man was voting guilty purely on the basis that the defendant was
raised in the "slums" and he had an already constructed bias which he used to judge the case. The
film also raises the issues with jurors that aren't committed to the jury process, although may grow to
want to leave

12 Angry Men Analysis
Twelve Angry Men
Recently in my AP English class, we watched The film "Twelve Angry Men". The film was unique
in the fact that it only had one setting, the Jury Room. The film showed no one else but the jurors
and the warden, who all remained completely nameless throughout the entire movie and we're only
identified by their juror numbers. The jurors were drastically different which I believe added more
diversity and made the plot more complex and intriguing to the audience. I don't believe the film
had a specific intended audience, I believe that this show can be appreciated by all audiences
because it shows that reasonable doubt is a much easier state of mind then certainty.
Over the course of the show, juror number 8 persuades every one of the other 11 jurors to understand
why he is so adamant about taking into account reasonable doubt, which in turn entices the others to
change their votes from guilty to not guilty. Juror number 8 says many times throughout the show
that he is not certain that the man didn't do it, he just has reason to believe that there could be a
possibility that he may not have been at fault for this particular crime. All of the other jurors in the
beginning of this show are stacked against him, but as he begins to explain why he has Reasonable
Doubt he wins the votes of the other 11 men.
Rose introduces the legal concept of Reasonable Doubt At the beginning of the play with 12 jurors
coming into a jury room to debate whether or not a boy,

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
...show more content...
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

12 Angry Men Essay
TO: Dr. Villanova
FROM: Christopher Denison III
DATE: November 13, 2014
SUBJECT: 12 Angry Men
1.Juror #7 is preoccupied with going to see the New York Yankees baseball game. But, how could
you blame him? The New York Yankees won the World Series in 1956 and had just won 6 of the 7
World Series from 1947–1953. So the Yankees incredible baseball team seemed to take precedence
over juror #7 jury duty. I found great humor in him given the variety of jokes and smart comments
for any juror member who keeps him there any longer than need be.
2.Asa
3.Deindividuation takes place 32 minutes into the movie when the jury proceeds to tally up their
second vote. After being informed that one juror member voted not guilty juror #3 stood up in...show
more content...
This commonality is a superficial factor that added to the group's cohesion. The main factor is that
they all share the same goal which is to reach a verdict. The cohesion of the group is further
enforced by the fact that the door is locked and the group cannot leave until such time that they all
agree on the verdict without contest. The locked door forced them to become cohesive as well as
the duty. Originally there was a sense of group cohesion towards the beginning of the movie when
11 out of the 12 Jurors found the teenager guilty. After the second vote we found that only 10 of the
12 jurors found the teenager guilty. As the movie progresses it switches to a split decision between
the juror members. Finally towards the end of the film it becomes a unanimous decision of finding
the teenage boy not

12 Angry Men Essay
Twelve Angry Men highlights the importance of seeing things from more than one perspective.
Discuss.
Reginald Rose's play Twelve Angry Men emphasises the importance of seeing things from more than
one perspective. Set in a New York jury room in 1957, Rose highlights how important it is that the
jury discuss all of the evidence from the case in detail and from multiple angles. Representative of
this notion is the 8th Juror who is willing to acknowledge alternative views or interpretations. From
the outset of the play he goes against the crowd voting "not guilty". He then considers all of the
details of the evidence including the old man's testimony and the boy's inability to remember the
movie he saw. In contrast to this character, are...show more content...
Rose therefore reinforces the idea that by giving the boy a chance and looking at the case from
different perspectives this gives the defendant a better chance in gaining an impartial hearing which
is of prime importance. The 8th Juror sees the situation from the defendants perspective and
presented by witnesses testimonies also looks at the evidence and the facts presented by the witness
testimonies of the case from many perspectives.
The 8th Juror actively questions what constitutes a 'fact' when examining the evidence. He does this
by looking at each aspect of the evidence provided and considering alternative options to the
explanations given in court. When the defendant is unable to remember what movie he had seen the
8th Juror suggests that the may not have been able to remember minor details after such "an
upsetting experience... as being struck in the face by [his] father". He also questions the old man's
testimony. While many of the jurors believe the old man's testimony is "unshakeable" Rose
challenges the idea there is a lot of "circumstantial evidence" yet no concrete facts. Therefore he
encourages the jurors to look from different perspectives at the witness testimonies, not just accept
what they hear as being true. Many of the eyewitnesses may have been fallible and therefore should
be subject to the same questioning as the defendant in

Summary : ' 12 Angry Men ' Essay
Amit Erez
Professor Huppin
Communication Studies 170
May 14, 2016 Thought Paper #2 The Constitution guarantees the right to trial by an impartial jury.
Impartiality is the principle holding that all parties should be subject to equal treatment under the
law. Being impartial requires jury members to reach a decision based on the evidence presented.
The chosen jury must be unbiased, and capable of weighing out the evidence objectively. In order
to counter bias, The Supreme Court established a rule that the selection of jurors must be from a
pool representative of a cross–section of the community.
In the film, 12 Angry Men, the chosen jury panel was far from what we would consider today to be
"representative of the community." As we saw in the film, a jury non–representative of its peers can
provoke prejudice and indifference in the trial process. The jury panel in 12 Angry Men consisted
of all white men who were all middle–aged with the exception of two elder fellows. The defendant in
this case was a young, Puerto Rican male. Before deliberation, the jurors took an initial vote count
to see which men were leaning toward a verdict of guilty, and which ones were leaning to vote not
guilty. The count was 11 to 1. Only one man was reasonable and brave enough to challenge the
majority, and presume the boy's innocence. From the very beginning, a more diverse jury could have
remedied this imbalance. It is a concern that a jury consisting of all white members

12 Angry Men
Olivia Erickson
Psych 3203
"12 Angry Men"
The film "Twelve Angry Men" does an excellent job exemplifying many psychological processes.
This compelling film featured twelve men that must decide weather or not a certain slum kid was
considered guilty or innocent on behalf of a murder trial. To begin the votes, all but one decided the
man was guilty. Throughout the film, heated discussions sway the minds of the men to vote not
guilty.
During the time spent in the jury room, conformity was something that was greatly explained.
Conformity is well seen when the men were not able to back up their reasons for voting guilty.
They were never able to give true reasoning other than "just because." No concrete evidence was said
to support their reasoning,...show more content...
A very quiet banker with much intelligence becomes nervous when the rest of the group calls
upon him to state his opinion. With all eyes and ears on him, it becomes very difficult for the
banker to portray his true feelings of the case and is unable to come up with viable information.
Although this example isn't direct to social facilitation, it becomes active within the evaluation
apprehension theory, which is indeed one specific part of social facilitation. An example that the
movie portrayed was when the banker is under the presence of other people who are perceived as
potential evaluators. During the film, many great psychological examples were brought into play.
Social loafing is one of them and it is the tendency for people to exert less effort when they pool
their effort toward a common goal than when they are individually accountable. This is shown when
most of the jurors provide poor explanations to support the ideas they originally gave. A specific
argument I found to support this theory was when the businessman exclaimed "you tell them" after
one of the men made a statement. Henry Fonda's strong opinion on the case creates what is an
excellent example of social compensation. He strongly believes that no jury should go against the
constitution because of something they think should happen. He claims in the beginning of the
movie "every man

Analysis Of ' 12 Angry Men '
12 Angry Men
Barling definitions (for background):
Idealized Influence – defined by the values, morals, and ethical principles of a leader and is
manifest through behaviours that supress self interest and focus on the good of the collective.
Research has shown that leaders who have higher moral reasoning, who are ethical, or who are
self–sacrificing are perceived as more transformational or charismatic.
Ways in which juror number 11 demonstrated idealized influence:
"A refugee from Europe who had come to this country in 1941. Aman who speaks with an accent and
who is ashamed, humble, almost subservient to the people around him, but who will honestly seek
justice because he has suffered through so much injustice." https://docs.google.com/document/d
/1irVXTuMAQESSwtoqOtQiC_–5dZa59LCmOxA_IQzlxww/edit Juror 11 is a refugee from
Europe. He is a watchmaker who speaks politely and deeply appreciates his democratic rights and
freedoms and has no tolerance for those that don't. He respects process, and wants others to do
what is right. For the most part he is controlled in his emotions and we only really see him get
fired up when juror 7 wants to change his vote simply to hurry the process so that he can make the
baseball game for which he has tickets. He is disgusted that someone would not take their role
seriously especially when a boy's life is at stake. He pushes hard at the juror and demands that he
explain why he changed his vote. He speaks with such conviction that seven

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 more content...
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

Twelve Angry Men Essay
Twelve Angry Men
The jury in a trial is selected to examine certain facts and determine truth based only upon the
evidence presented to them in court. It is assumed that the jurors will judge fairly and without any
personal bias. In spite of this assumption people will be people and in some cases, logic and
emotion will collide. An excellent example that shows precisely what I'm talking about is in the
movie TwelveAngry Men. Twelve men who initially are strangers to each other have the fate of a
young boy resting in the palm of their hands. In the beginning everyone is convinced he is guilty
except one who has one reasonable doubt in his mind. The single man on his own was able to
convince each of them by using logic to examine the...show more content...
Not because of fact but because of past experiences and other issues. That is why today in our
legal system the jurors are now questioned to ensure they aren't racist or hold a personal bias
against anyone. During certain points in the arguments of the jurors it is obvious through what
they say that peer pressure plays a small part in deciding whether the defendant is innocent or
guilty. When the first vote was cast and only one juror voted not guilty he was under intense and
hostile scrutiny. The entire group cannot see why he voted not guilty and they simply say, "tell us
what you're thinking and we'll tell you where you're all mixed up." The way I see it they are
implying that the defendant is definitely guilty and the juror who voted not guilty is just simply
confused. Some of the jurors even vote guilty because they don't want to be the one who keeps
the other jurors from being able to leave. The system of voir dire has its advantages and
disadvantages. Some lawyers use it to their advantage and hire jury consultants, who try and
come up with the best jury for their case, they look for things such as race, gender, and past
experiences to help them determine the person's biases. That is the lawyer's advantage and our
disadvantage. That is exactly the opposite of what a jury is supposed to be made up of. However
sometimes voir dire helps to rid the jury of the racist people and helps to make it a fair trial. I
believe the best way to achieve

12 Angry Men Essay

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Paper Writer Services

More from Paper Writer Services (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

12 Angry Men Essay