A Brief Comparison Of Twelve Angry Men And On The Waterfront

A Brief Comparison Of Twelve Angry Men And On The Waterfront
Those in climacteric situations often make decisions not with kind and compassionate motives but
more often with self–serving and egotistical intentions. Both "Twelve Angry Men" written by
Reginald Rose and "On The Waterfront" directed by Elia Kazan portray characters faced with
morally crippling choices to make and they feature persons who are similarly driven such as Johnny
Friendly and Juror 3. The novel and film also display homogenous themes throughout, such as
justice and correct moral choice. In contrast however, characters throughout "On The Waterfront"
are commonly basing decisions more upon fear and the need for protection, whilst for the duration
of "Twelve Angry Men" choices are made with prejudice and their own dispositions in ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In Elia Kazan's film, the workers on the waterfront who choose to remain "D and D" (Deaf and
Dumb) to the corruption taking place make this decision out of fear and the need to protect oneself.
However in Reginald Rose's novel the decisions of the characters is based solely on prejudice and
predisposition, relating not at all to the protect of oneself. It could be assumed that this difference
may relate to the status of the characters, as Kazan's characters are low status workers and Rose's
are middle class. They do not fear for their safety nor do they have any reason to. This primary
difference is highlighted in Kayo Dugan, who attempted to make the correct moral choice and speak
out against Friendly and Jurors 3 and 10 who choose to convict the boy purely based on personal
feelings and not factual evidence. During Dugan's character transformation, he asks Father Barry
"Are you willing to go all the way?" to ensure that even is he fails and is murdered it will not be in
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Stereotypes In Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose
In the play "Twelve Angry Men" by Reginald Rose, twelve classic stereotypes of people are
portrayed. These stereotypes, in the form of twelve jurors, are rounded up to discuss a homicide
case– a young minority who is possibly responsible for his father's murder. One of these stereotypes
is molded into the polished, wealthy Juror 4. In my group's script, this character acts as a radical
liberal, supporting gun control. He relies entirely on facts for evidence, tries to act as a leader, and
remains unwavered by emotions. To begin, Juror 4 only uses his vast knowledge–base of facts to
back up his thinking. When Juror 10 implies that he doesn't believe in gun control, Juror 4 is quick
to spit out facts about regions with strong gun enforcement, stating that "[United States'] gun
homicide rate is 25 times higher than all those ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
As can be seen from these quotes, Juror 4 does not take other potential factors that may contribute to
these numbers into consideration. He could have considered whether the Japan murder rate in 2008
was that low only that year, or whether the other "high–income countries" have other elements
besides gun control laws that reduce the homicide rates. But he does not. Instead, he pauses at what
is given to him, never hunting for potential loopholes. Thus, Juror 4 relies on citations to make his
point across, never incorporating deeper thinking. Also, he acts as a leader, facilitating and
regulating events. After Juror 10 violently smacks a cough drop out of Juror 2's hand, Juror 4 acts as
the peacemaker by saying "Now now, calm down." This juror sees it as his job to make sure
everything stays in line, which is an important leadership trait. Lastly, Juror 4 is portrayed as

Juror's Guilt In The Film Twelve Angry Men
In the film Twelve Angry Men, a young boy is charged for killing his father meanwhile he is on the
line of life or death. His faith is dependant on the selected twelve men in jury, who have been placed
all together in a room, to decide whether the boy will be proclaimed as guilty or not guilty. During
this process, we encounter one out of twelve jurors, which comes to be juror number eight, opposes
in favor of the defendant's guilt. Soon, complications between the men begin to arise as the boy's
future is foreshadowed throughout the film. While discussing the case, the evidence that was
pronounced led to my decision as of why the defendant is guilty of the murder on his father. The
reasons are:: "Everyone has a breaking point" "People make mistakes" "The testimonies of old man
and old woman" ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Everyone is not perfect and sometimes people have to learn right from wrong the hard way. Teens
such as the defendant aren't always the wisest hence, the defendant has a crime history. His actions
prove that he does not make good decisions under no circumstance. When you commit crime once
it's most likely you'll do it again because it'll come easy to you. Therefore, the boy is guilty for his
bad choices that led him to this murder. Although, the defendant try to cover for his actions it wasn't
enough to fool a person. As it was mentioned before these choices will come easy to him in such
way that he claims the knife fell off his pocket while at the movies. Yet, he states that he does not
remember any images of the movie where in this case is very skeptical. If the boy did lose the knife
what possibility is there for someone to coincidently find the exact knife the kid bought and then use
it to kill his father. It would be very suspicious for a random person to go to the father and do the
crime, because what connections would that person have with the dad. It is far beyond probable that
this situation might have

Twelve Angry Men
Twelve Angry Men is a play with interesting conflicts. This play takes place in a jury room, where it
is hot, sweaty and cluttered. The case is about a young boy accused of murdering his father. One
man is keeping them from leaving, the man who voted not guilty. You can imagine how irritated the
others might be when there is eleven votes against one and no one is allowed to leave until they
have all agreed on a verdict. It is up to one man to convince the jury to give the young boy a fair
trial. Twelve Angry Men is a play about one guy standing his ground and overcoming seemly
insurmountable opposition to change other people's minds. The play Twelve angry men has a lot of
imagery. One example of imagery in this play is the quote "SEVEN (to ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
THREE turns his back on them. There is silence for a moment and then the FOREMAN goes to the
door and knocks on it. It opens. The GUARD looks in and sees them all standing. The GUARD
holds the door for them as they begin slowly to file out. EIGHT waits at the door as the others file
past him. Finally he and THREE are the only ones left. THREE turns around and sees that they are
alone. Slowly he moves toward the door. Then he stops at the table. He pulls the switch–knife out of
the table and walks over to EIGHT with it. He holds it in the approved knife–fighter fashion and
looks long and hard at EIGHT, pointing the knife at his belly. EIGHT stares back. Then THREE
turns the knife around. EIGHT takes it by the handle. THREE exits. EIGHT closes the knife, puts it
away and, taking a last look around the room, exits, closing the door. The camera moves in close on
the littered table in the empty room, and we clearly see a slip of crumpled paper on which are
scribbled the words "Not guilty.") I find this resolution to be rather beautiful, a fair trial was given
and they walk away with a new way of seeing things. I feel that Twelve Angry Men is a lesson, this
play teaches us to always be fair, to not judge, and to not follow other people judgement. This is a
very important lesson to learn, i feel as though many of us believe in things right of the bat without
a second thought. We do this with rumors, opinions

Twelve Angry Men
The objective of this paper is to relate the movie twelve angry men to the course book social
psychology. The film is about twelve men who are on are deciding the fait of a young man who is
accused of killing his father. In the jury room the discussions, reactions, and occurances that took
place can relate to the course book (NAME HERE AND AUTHOR) in many ways. The conections
that can me
First off one major concept that was apparent through out the movie is prejudice which in its slef
has three components. There is evidence of prejudice because of the attitudes, actions and thoughts
that some of the jury members exhibit throughout there deliberation. Prejudice is defined as our
negative attitudes towards people in a certain group soley because ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Which is " defined as a kind of thinking in which maintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity is
more important than considering the facts in a realistic manner". This theory first came about from
Ivering Janis. He belived there had to be certain criteria met for group think to be likely to occur.
Some criteria are things such as group cohesion or having a distinct leader. Recen re–evaluate of
janis's has shown that group think occurs more often then original thought and all criteria does not
have to be apperent for it to occur. The jury in twelve angry men did exibit signs that were common
when group think was apparent. In the beginning majority of the men wanted to come to a decision
quickly they felt the young boy was guilty and didn't want to waist there time. So we can assume the
group was mostly unified in there opinions. As well the men were isolated from outside opinion.
You can even assume there is a group leader, although there was never really a distinct leader a
couple men were very opinionated and made there thoughts heard. Next is is said that to create
groupthink there needs to be a supposed threat . while the majority voted guilty there was one man
who voted not guilty. We can see as a threat because many of the jury members tried to convince
him to conform to the groups verdict. The group was very hostile towards the man that disagreed
with the majority. An indicator of groupthink is

Stereotypes In Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose
Twelve Angry Men In the text Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the jury began as
uncooperative and evolved into a more agreeable jury by the end. The jury started in a state of
contradiction and an inability to cooperate. Most jurors only cared to listen to themselves and just
wanted to bully other jurors into agreeing with them. They were in a hurry to get out of the
deliberation room and just wanted to be done with this case as we can see when Seven said to Ten
that "this better be fast" (Rose 88). He just wanted to leave so he could watch a theatrical
performance. This proves how little this case meant to him and several other jurors. You can see
how they disregard evidence for stereotypes when Ten explained the defendant's supposed lie by
saying that the jury "know[s] how [these] people lie... [and] don't need any real big reason to kill
someone either" (Rose 106). He believed that just because the kid was raised in a slum, he would lie
and kill ruthlessly. He didn't believe anyone raised in the slums was above murder and lying. The
early jury was a disaster and a disgrace to the justice system, but they slowly began to redeem
themselves. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
They choose to work together more and finally begin to see the argument from both sides. They still
argue, but more of the jury is willing to listen and work with Eight. For example, Four finally
changes his mind after hearing Eight explain that the woman's testimony is false because she was
not wearing her glasses, saying that it was "Funny. [He] had never thought of [that]" (Rose 107). He
sees the flaws in his argument and doesn't continue fighting. Other jurors start to listen as well. The
late jury has a much more open mind and are more willing to change their opinions. They slowly
start to work together and come to a consensus. The late jury falls into order and works together
after much chaos and

Twelve Angry Men
Twelve angry men essay 'Twelve angry men' shows that personal experience is the strongest factor
influencing human decision–making processes.' Discuss Twelve angry men by Reginald Rose is an
intriguing play that explores the idea of personal experience affecting ones decision. Indeed Rose
shows that decision–making is based on personal experiences. This is evident in the play when the
3rd Juror's personal experience with his own son influences his decision and as a result he votes for
guilty, the 9th Jurors old age becomes one of the greatest factors which influences his judgement of
the boy ; when the 5th Jurors personal experience in a slum causes further doubts to form in his
mind It is clear throughout the play that personal ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Therefore personal experience is a very important factor that affects a person's

Twelve Angry Men: An Analytical Death
An Analytical Death Just like a detective who analyzes evidence on a crime scene, the twelve jurors
in Twelve Angry men by Reginald Rose, are put to the task of analyzing the case of murder, with a
young sixteen year–old boy who was accused of killing his father. Some Jurors do not accept this
task and stick to their personal prejudice applying it to their decision about the case. While other
jurors accept the challenge and analyze the evidence given to them, for example, Juror Eight. Juror
Eight analyzes the evidence and keeps his personal prejudice separate from his decision on the case.
Juror Eight is analytical. One way Juror Eight proves to be analytical is by analyzing the evidence
that is presented. After Juror Eight presents an identical ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
After Juror Ten goes on a serious racist tirade and is told repeatedly to sit down and shut his mouth
by the other Jurors, Juror Eight finally steps in; "It's very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a
thing like this. And no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth. Well, I don't think
any real damage has been done here..." (Rose 66). Throughout the play, Juror Eight is able to
analyze that Juror Ten is using his personal prejudice and racism against the boy for his vote of
"guilty". He proves this with "It's very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this". The
use of "And no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth" indicates that Juror Eight
has already analyzed that Juror Ten is using his personal bias against the case instead of the facts,
and that his prejudice is obscuring the truth about the case. Another way Juror Eight analyzes
personal opinions is when Juror Three is still voting "guilty" and is trying to defend his stance with
evidence that was presented during the case, he uses this evidence as a shield to fool the other Jurors
that he is not using his past experiences and his bias against the case. However, Juror Eight has
already analyzed that Juror Three has a personal bias against the case; "It's not your boy. He's
somebody else." (Rose 72). Juror Eight has already analyzed Juror Three's defensive behavior and

Analysis Of Reginald Rose's Argument Against The Jury...
In Reginald Rose's play, Twelve Angry Men, Rose's play makes an argument against the jury system
in the United States. This is shown when Juror #12 changes his vote and when Juror #10 talks about
his prejudice towards the defendant . When more evidence is presented to the jurors, Juror #12
decides to change his vote to guilty and Juror #7 says, "Batton, Barton, Durstine and Osborn up
there bouncin' backwards and forwards like a tennis ball" (250). This is significant because Juror #7
is referring to Juror #12 when he says that. It shows how Juror #12 doesn't know which side to vote
for and that he is always changing his mind when new evidence or reasonable doubt is presented.
Juror #12 is the type of jurors that are only followers and are

Twelve Angry Men
Does Twelve Angry Men show that prejudice can obscure the truth?
In the play Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose shows that prejudices can prevent jurors from seeing
the truth. This is evident throughout the play as juror 10 blinded to the facts because prejudice
clouds his judgement. However, besides prejudice, Rose also show personal bias, ignorance and a
weak characteristic can take away jurors' abilities to see the truth. For instance, juror 3's bad
relationship with his son in the past and juror7's ignorant attitude towards the case ultimately affect
their perspective about the facts and evidence presented in the case. As a result, these factors not
only obscure the truth but also make it hard for the jury to reach a just verdict and ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
This is why juror 3 refuses to listen to facts and doubts, which consequently makes him unable to
see the truth. We can see this when he says: "That goddam rotten kid. I know him what they're like.
What they do to you. How they kill you every day" (p.g 59). Personal bias takes over his thinking
abilities so he cannot understand facts and evidence. Without the understanding of facts and
evidence, he will never be able to reach for the truth so in order to reach for the truth he needs to
triumph over his personal bias. Even though prejudice has the power to obscure the truth, it seems
personal bias has the same power in preventing jurors from seeing the truth.
Another factor that can obscure the truth of the case is the ignorance and weak characteristics of
some jurors. This particularly applies to juror 7 who is ignorant, impatient and just wants to finish
early so that he can watch the ball game. In juror 7's opinion, the case is a "Goddam waste of time"
(p.g 4) and he has better things to do rather than being a juror. His statement indicates that he does
not understand how significant the jury process is and how is the truth affects the defendant's life.
Due to his ignorant attitude, he cannot see how facts are important in determining the truth and
consequently unwilling to understand the facts. We can see this when he says: "You couldn't change
my kind if you talked for one

Tension In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men
The setting of the play enhances the tension among the men. Do you agree?
Twelve Angry Men is a play written by Reginald Rose regarding the jury of a murder trial. It is
concerning the verdict on whether the accused is guilty or not guilty of committing murder. The
setting of this play enhances the tension amongst the 12 jurors to choose if the accused' is guilty or
not for ending his father's life with a switch blade. The tension in the play is most predominantly
exhibited through the instances of the hot weather during the examination of the case and how it is
amplified since they cannot escape the room. The tension is further explored through the culture of
the jurors' and the accused'. Lastly the age differences of the room contribute in ... Show more
The difference in age is established through the directions of the play that describes the 9th Juror as
an "old man". As an older man his opinion of being a jury member is not as big of an annoyance,
since he most likely does not have any pressing priorities, such as work, events or family matters; in
contrast to some of the other jury members in the room. The youthful members, such as the 7th
Juror that desires to depart to his "ballgame" and the 4th Juror that is required to find deals as a
broker for his clients, are quite busy and have other affairs to attend to. Thus, the different ages
amplify the irritated viewpoints in the younger aged jurors, since they have other matters to attend
to and wish to achieve the verdict quickly. The 9th Juror's eagerness causes an impatient atmosphere
within the courtroom. His impulsive nature is displayed when he stated that the "boy in the trial is
probably guilty", but he desired "to hear more". This kind–hearted nature causes apprehension and
friction through the courtroom, since most the jury members do not see the point of prolonging the
dispute and just with to go back to their lives and

Influence Of Group Behavior In Twelve Angry Men By...
Twelve Angry Men By: Reginald Rose In Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose the play has been
used to teach students about group behavior, the role of individual influence in group settings, and
positive and negative roles in Twelve Angry Men. In the group, some of the Jurors represent bad,
and impatient behavior, and some won't even give other Jurors a chance to talk about their opinions
about the case, Which can Influence the group. Some of the jurors were very calm, patient, and gave
people a chance to give their opinions, which influences good and respectful behavior.In Twelve
Angry Men there is a lot of negativity going on with some of the Jurors. Juror Seven is always in a
hurry, and he wants to get the Trial over with so he can go to his

Twelve Angry Men
What can be said about Twelve Angry Men that hasn't already been said before with more
eloquence. Sidney Lumet's first and arguably best feature has entered into the annals of film history
and has been picked apart ad nauseum by critics, industry professionals and academics alike.
Twelve men walk into a jury room eleven say guilty, the one played by Henry Fonda says not guilty;
etc. etc.
There is a reason for this however; not the least of which is the films enduring timelessness made all
the more impressive by its subject matter. Made during the decline of the studio system, the film
was an oddity onto itself. A tiny black and white film at a time of Technicolor, a principle cast of
character actors at a time of A–list credit cramming, and ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Most of the film takes place in a single room and most of the information pertinent to the case is
told second–handedly. Despite this, the film has the tension of a modern day thriller and then some.
The dialogue is so innately organic though never rambling and the characterizations are rich and
detailed. The camera moves through the room effortlessly making enough cuts to keep things
interesting without being distracting. Many large lugubrious epics wish they could keep things this
interesting! The inspired script written by Reginald Rose is so fluid that it has been open to
interpretation not all of which are good. Many argue that Fonda's Juror #8 manipulates the other
jurors and is less a fleshed out character than a symbol of ivory tower intellectualism. Additionally
the points he raises range from valid to a bit sketchy and he takes "beyond reasonable doubt" to
extremes. I wouldn't put it quite in that context. I think just like everyone else in the room, Juror #8's
choices are made based on his personal perspective. He feels compelled to push and push because
no one else will. It's a character flaw that may not be admonished like the racial ramblings of Juror
#10 (Ed Begley) but isn't legitimized by definitive answers

Prejudice And Justice In Twelve Angry Men
Twelve Angry Men (1957) is a play set in New York, which takes place in a jury room. It follows a
jury's decision–making process in a murder trial. We are able to observe the gradual change of
eleven of the twelve jurors' minds about their verdict, illuminating the central concerns in the play.
These central concerns are prejudice and justice and are shown through settings, stage directions
and dialogue. The quest for justice that is at the core of the American legal system is shown to be a
very subjective component. Each juror desires justice, however justice becomes vague and changes
throughout each individual in the play. Rose uses tension and conflict to explore the two–sided
nature of justice. The quote "You don't believe the boy. How come you believe the women? She's
one of "them", too, isn't she?" (8th juror) "You're a pretty smart fellow, aren't you? (10th juror) this
illustrates how many of the jurors are clouded by their own bigotry, which they are unable to seek ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Rose illuminates how prejudice is shown through the unfolding contrast between the 12 jurors and
how their personalities varies from their different backgrounds and understanding, of a 16 years old
destiny being put on the death penalty due to murdering his father. Many jurors feel that with the
evidence presented by the trial, that the boy is a member of minority group. The jurors all feel
because of his background and "kind" they assume that the boy is guilty. The quote "one of them"
by the 9th juror, highlights the uses of accusatory tone endorsing that he was nobody who lived in
the slums, which the jurors stereotypes him as an criminal. "Slums are breeding grounds for
criminals" is a subjective analysis of how the other jurors reflect on him, there is no evident
explaining this theory but judging from his criminal history is its most likely they believe he is
guilty. Overall prejudice can often be misunderstood leading to serious

The Twelve Angry Men Juror 3 and Juror 8 Comparing Essay
Comparison essay comparing Juror 3 and Juror 8
What are some similarities between Jurors 3 and 8? What about differences?
Oh gosh, it's been years since I've seen the movie (didn't read the play).
Okay, Juror #3 is the angry father, and Juror #8 is the guy who stands alone in the INNOCENT vote,
right?
I suspect the similarities are easier to find by reading the play because the movie really shows their
contrasts. There is one similarity in that when they really believe something, they are passionate
about their cause.
Juror 3 is explosive and highly emotional
Juror 8 thinks before speaking and is a calming influence on the jury
Juror 3 is loud
Juror 8 is quiet
Juror 3 expects people to agree with him and ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In the movie 12 Angry Men, juror number 8 (Henry Fonda) was not sure if evidence presented...
Twelve Angry Men The play �Twelve Angry Men�, By Reginald Rose, is a play about 12 jurors
that in an uncomfortable room have to discuss a life and death case about a boy that is accused or
killing his father. the jurors do not really know eachother to talk to and wish they were anywhere but
in that jury room. Every juror has a different emotional pattern that makes the play interesting. In
my opinion there were 3 main jurors
12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men A persons surroundings can influence him. In "12 Angry Men" by Reginald Rose a
young mans life is held by twelve men with contrasing views. Eight ... in the jury room: Juror 8,
Juror 3 and Juror 9. Juror 8 is important because he is smart, brave, and fair. Juror 3 was important
because he was the antagonist, he was mean, and he was intolerant. Juror 9 was important because
he wasn�t afraid of confronting other jurors. Juror 8 was a very important juror, he was the
protagonist. He was the one that proved the truth. Juror 8 was very smart, he bought a knife similar
to

12 Angry Men
12 Angry MenA persons surroundings can influence him. In "12 Angry Men" by Reginald Rose a
young manslife is held by twelve men with contrasing views. Eight a caring man, ... the one used in
the crime to prove that is easy to get an identical knife, and he proved that it

Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men
Twelve Angry Men, a play by Reginald Rose, follows the plot of twelve jurors in a courthouse jury
room. They are attempting to decide on a verdict for a 16 year old boy on trial for the murder of his
father. It is one of the hottest years on record in New York and these jurors just want the case to be
over. They all decide on leaving the boy guilty except for one, juror eight. He follows through on the
honesty that is supposed to be shown in the judicial system, but not like juror ten who uses prejudice
to persuade the other jurors to reach the verdict of guilty. During the play Juror eight uses facts and
evidence to create a claim without using his own beliefs and prejudices. Instead he uses sense and
going over the evidence that was presented

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

Twelve Angry Men
Reaction
The following play was written for television in 1957. The play was written by Reginald Rose and
depicts a story about twelve jurors trying to determine if a young boy is found guilty of killing his
father. The play starts out in the courtroom where the judge is giving instructions to the jurors on the
murder case. It is stated that if the young man is found guilty, he will be charged with a mandatory
sentence of the death penalty. It is now up to the twelve men to determine if this young man should
be sentenced to death. The twelve men then file into the jury room and sit in exact order as given in
court. They proceed to take a vote by stating whether they think the individual is guilty of
committing murder. Starting ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Majority influence occurs when individual decisions within a group are influenced by others in the
group. (Keyton, 2006) With members first group decision starting out with them openly going
around the table stating the defendant was guilty could have initially changed the votes of some
members to agree with the majority. Under majority influence, the decision making process showed
symptoms of groupthink. Groupthink occurred within this particular group of men as the majority of
the jurors overestimated their power and invulnerability. (Keyton, 2006) This therefore caused all
eleven jurors who believed the defendant was guilty to not question any evidence or circumstances
presented in the case. This was apparent throughout the film as the majority of the jurors were
narrow minded coming into the jury room. This is found to be true as the jurors failed to critically
examine and analyze the evidence stated in the case. All jurors except for juror # 8 took the
evidence at face value and did not want to accept any other circumstances that could have happened
that night the boy 's father was killed. Groupthink effected the groups cohesiveness as it was
moderately high causing the group to not challenge any evidence. (Keyton, 2006) Group cohesion is
an important factor of a group, which shows members have a desire to remain in a group. (Keyton,
2006) Presented in the play the initial reaction of the twelve men was through more of an individual

Tension In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men
The setting of the play enhances the tension among the men. Do you agree?
Twelve Angry Men is a play written by Reginald Rose regarding the jury of a murder trial. It is
concerning the verdict of whether the accused is guilty or not guilty of committing murder. The
setting of this play enhances the tension amongst the 12 jurors to choose if the accused' is guilty or
not for ending his father's life with a switch blade. The tension in the play is most predominantly
exhibited through the instances of the heat and the weather during the examination of the case.
Tension is further explored through the culture of the jurors and the accused'. Lastly the age
differences contribute in increasing the pressure within the verdict room.
The heat and the weather ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The 11th juror, a watchmaker of German background becomes infuriated at the 7th juror for not
being considerate towards the accused nor the juridical system; instead he is solely concerned for
the base ball tickets that are "burning a hole" in his pocket. The German feels rage towards the 7th
juror for his sloppy stance towards his country; this contributes in strengthening the tension in the
small room. The jury members are made up of the different socio–economic groups within America.
These different backgrounds create an apprehensive atmosphere because of the hierarchy of cultures
and the different social dynamics of the time. This is shown through the negative prejudice from
high classed citizens to the defense of people that grew up in the working class or the "slums" like
the accused. These bigotry views are explored through 4th jurors dialogue of how the "slums are
breeding grounds for criminals" and how this generalization increases the probability of the boy
being guilty, through the higher class's mind. The scrutiny from the various social classes caused a
tense

Collaboration In Twelve Angry Men
The film Twelve Angry Men, released in 1957, is based on a play by Reginald Rose of the same
title. This is a fascinating examination of a small group communication, the transitive process of
creating meaning with people who share a common purpose. Rose's story puts the American judicial
system on trial and comments on prejudices that were socially revenant in the 1950's. The
interaction between twelve diverse jurors brought together to decide the fate of a young defendant in
what appears as an open–and–shut trial has become an American classic and is considered a
demonstration of our legal system.
The group communication concepts I've selected that highlight important themes in the film are:
determining when collaboration is needed, the functional ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
These functions are goal function, analysis function, idea–generated function, evaluation function,
and personal sensitivity function. The first step is goal function, for the team or group to have a
clear goal. The goal in this film was to get 12 angry men to agree on a verdict, guilty or not guilty.
The second step is the analysis function, to analyze the data, inforamation, or evidence that can help
the group achieve the group goal. When juror #8 provided a not guilty decision many of the group
members became upset. juror #7 made it clear to the group that he would like to get out of their
quickly so he could attend the baseball game he had tickets for. This is a prime example of
individual roles, behaviors that focus on an individual other then the group or task at hand. This
behavior upsetter juror #8 due to the fact that a mans life is on the line and all he could focus on was
missing a baseball game. Other jurors were content with providing a guilty decision due to being
content with the argument made by the prosecution. Juror #8 pointed out that the murder wepon
potrayed by the prosection as being a very rare knife was infact not rare at all. He purchused the
same knife just blocks away from the defendants home. This swayed juror #9 to take a step back
from his once guilty decision to agree there is reasonable doubt in this case. Another

Juror 8 In Twelve Angry Men, By Reginald Rose
The play, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose is about twelve men chosen at random to participate
in a jury. They are given the task of deciding whether or not a young man is guilty of killing his
father. All of the men but Juror 8 vote guilty immediately, and as a result they must deliberate on
whether or not he is innocent. Juror 8 is a quiet, intelligent man, who only votes guilty to make sure
that the young man is given a fair discussion, because he feels uneasy just sending the boy off to die
without a fair discussion. Juror 8 is clever, smart, and resourceful, and these character traits can be
recognized multiple times throughout the play. First, and arguably most important, Juror 8 is
extremely bright. In Act III, the witness account of a woman who claims she witnessed the entire
murder, and swears she saw the son kill the father. Juror 8 is quick to poke hole in her story. First, he
points out that the woman wore glasses, and sense ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Juror 8 uses this to his advantage at the end of Act II. There is much discussion going on at the time
regarding a witness report who says he heard the young man shout, "I'm going to kill you." Juror 8
tries to reason with them over the seriousness of the statement, and when that does nothing, he
changes tactics. He begins to antagonize Juror 3, calling him things like a sadist, and accusing him
of letting his personal opinion cloud his judgment. Finally Juror 3 lunges at Juror 8, screaming, "I'll
kill him! I'll kill him!" Juror 8 was getting nowhere with the Jurors when he tried to discuss the
severity of the son's outburst. So, he began to tease Juror 3, knowing he was a hothead, and got him
to shout the same words the son shouted. This proved to the Jurors that just because you say
something, doesn't mean you're serious, like when the boy supposedly shouted, "I hate you". It also
showed how smart and clever Juror 8 could

The Jury System In The Film Twelve Angry Men
Twelve Angry Men is set during a scorching summer day in New York City, where twelve men
(Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Edward Binns, Jack
Warden, Henry Fonda, Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley, George Voskovec, and Robert Webber) sit on
the jury and deliberate the outcome of a murder trial. The defendant is an eighteen–year–old boy
who is accused of murdering his abusive father and tried for first–degree murder. Eager to escape
the heat and to attend to other matters, eleven of the twelve men cast their vote as guilty, but juror
eight does not. Many believe that the boy is capable of murder because the "slums are a breeding
ground for criminals." However, juror eight begins to take apart the prosecution's case, ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The legal responsibilities of the jury demonstrate the second topic area in the AP Government
Course, Political Beliefs and Behaviors. As seen in the film, many jurors misunderstand their legal
duties, and some simply do not understand the concept of "unreasonable doubt." For example, the
seventh juror is more concerned about the baseball game than thoroughly sorting through the
evidence. Additionally, two jurors play a game of tic tac toe, treating the defendant's life like a
game. They trust the circumstantial evidence because it confirms their bigoted attitudes. For
instance, the sixth juror believes that the boy is a murderer because of his low socioeconomic
background and they all assume that the boy is guilty because of the witnesses' testimonies. All
these events display the ways in which each character participates in political life and exercises their
opinion and views on politics. Additionally, the eighth juror believes that the boy has the right to a
fair trial, embodying the last topic in the AP Government Course. He points out that despite his
upbringing and dysfunctional background, the defendant is innocent until proven

Essay on Twelve Angry Men (Norms, Roles, Process)
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 group initially started with a process of arriving at a decision by voting and there was a
groupthink causing ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The jurors are transformed by the process of deliberating. Eleven men voted guilty because of their
prejudices, fears, laziness and insecurities, but they are eventually persuaded by reason to give up
these limiting beliefs, to see the potential in the facts, and to find justice. 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
Energizers tries to keep up the group's energy level
Elaborator goes into detail about how group plans

Film Analysis: Twelve Angry Men
The movie "Twelve Angry Men" is about a young man who is accused of stabbing his father to
death. The twelve jurors have to decide whether the defendant is guilty or innocent. If the young
man is found guilty, there is a mandatory death sentence (the jury needs to be unanimous in their
decision). At the preliminary vote, eleven of the twelve jurors vote the young man guilty. Henry
Fonda is the only one who voted the accused as not guilty because he doesn't want to send the
defendant to the death penalty without discussing it. Throughout the movie, Henry uses various
styles of leadership in which I will discuss further in the following section.
Question 1:At the beginning, Henry uses the supporting style of leadership from Hersey and ...
Throughout the deliberation he respected quiet members and formed alliances. This leadership style
was effective because Henry couldn't have told others what to do but the jurors needed direction. He
wasn't very direct in his approach in the sense of telling them what to do or else he may have
encountered a great amount of resistance. Instead he got the flow of communication going by stating
his opinion and clarifying his thoughts which got the involvement of others.
I don't believe the other two leadership styles were used to a great extent by Henry. I don't recall
him using the directing style in which as a leader he tells others what to do. Many of the discussions
in the deliberating room were provoked by Henry; however he did not have to tell anyone what to
do. For example, Henry began the discussion of the murder weapon however Lee Cobb is the one
who asked about the credibility of the old man and his testimony. The discussion of the angle of the
stab wound was initiated by John Fiedler, and Joseph Sweeney discovered the indented impressions
on Jack Klugman's nose in which the old woman had the same marks. As well, the delegating style
was not used because of the lack of motivation and willingness demonstrated by the followers.
Henry wasn't able to sit back and trust the group to

Juror Number 8 In Reginald Ronald's Twelve Angry Men
Albert Einstein's ideology expounds the central conception evident in the Reginald Ronald's play
Twelve Angry Men. Set in a hot, congested jury room twelve men are chosen to determine the fate
of a young boy accused of murdering his father. In the play it is Juror number eight that has
outshone the rest of the characters. Juror number eight has altered my traditional viewpoint into
modern realism. His tenaciousness, wit, and insight have made him the ideal character to illustrate
in regards to influence. Analyzing the dimensions of each character, in Twelve Angry Men, Juror
number eight's authenticity and adherence to the law, brought forth by his tenaciousness, cleverness
and insight, have relished him to be an influential character upon my quotidian life. ... Show more
Juror number eight has made it his goal to avail the adolescent boy rid of the notoriety that was
placed upon him. Furthermore, Juror number eight's tenaciousness to abide by equity has made me a
well–rounded individual. I have been influenced to venerate my city and the citizens that it
composes. Additionally, I have been inspired to take action against compulsory courses such as
accommodating to the welfare of my community. I have taken the initiative to fend for women's
rights in New York through my participation in the Women Youth Leadership Program. Juror
number eight has sculpted a novel pathway to being an individual in my community, and advocating
for those whom do not have a voice in

Sources Of Bigotry In Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose
Twelve Angry Men is a dramatic courtroom play by Reginald Rose published in 1954, which
focuses on a jury of twelve men arguing the fate of a young boy, who has been accused of being a
murderer. This play cleverly portrays the fact that prejudice exists in society and within every
conflict. There are many sources of bigotry in this play, those being mostly character and legal
conflict. Many jurors within this play fail to consider all the evidence and take it at face value, this
leads to reasonable doubt, which in turn introduces controversy between characters. Legal conflict is
introduced by the writer, when juror 8 who believes the court failed to carefully examine the
evidence and were to hasty to validate a decision. "No. I'm saying

Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose
The performance I chose to focus on is Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose. It is a play I went to
watch at the repertory theatre in Birmingham. The play is set up in a New York City court of law
jury room in 1957. The play opens in an empty jury room, where the judge's voice is heard in the
background, giving a set of final instructions to the jurors. From this voice over the audience
instantly get an impression that it is a murder case and that if found guilty, the required sentence for
the accused is the death penalty. After the final instructions from the judge the twelve men who
decide to take a break before deliberating enter into the scene. They scatter around the room, some
sitting, some standing and some standing outside. They complained that the room was hot and
without air conditioning and the fan doesn't work. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The other eleven want him to change his vote so they can carry their verdict and go home. He
refuses, so they have to argue about it. If they can't reach a united decision, the case will have to be
re–tried. They argue a lot but slowly, the other eleven jurors come around to agreeing with the one
that thinks the accused was innocent, and that his lawyer did a useless job of representing him. They
all have different characters and different reasons for believing the way they do, so it's not all the
same disagreement each time. They go through all the evidence presented in the trial, so the
audience get a sense of what happened. In the end, they all come around to the one guy's way of
thinking, and unanimously agree to deliver a verdict of "not guilty." Justice

Prejudice In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men
Reginald Rose's exceptional talent in playwriting is shown in his latest drama Twelve Angry Men.
Rose captured and captivated the general public with the amount of prejudice shown from the
characters, and it shows that prejudice opposed to race isn't the only prejudice there is, and in this
play, this is explained and experienced with. Numerous characters in this production are capable of
prejudice towards this youth accused of murder of his father and also prejudice is made from jurors
to other jurors. For instance, juror 10, a "scrooge" and he is one of the main antagonists along with
juror 3 and juror 7. Juror 10; his name is not known but the play reveals that his personality is quite
bitter and he "values on any human life to save his own" and he is, of course, a ... Show more
It is known that juror 10 is a forceful man with strong judgments that occasionally get him in
trouble. In times like this, his words are quite unnecessary, "[4TH JUROR: ... He was born in a
slum. Slums are breeding grounds for criminals. I know it. So do you. It's no secret. Children from
slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society. Now I think–] [10TH JUROR: Brother, you can
say that again. The kids who crawl outa those places are real trash. I don't want any part of them, I'm
telling you.]" Later, juror 5 discloses that he has lived in a slum. "[5TH JUROR: I've lived in a slum
all my life. I nurse that trash in Harlem Hospital six nights a week... I used to play in a backyard that
was filled with garbage. Maybe it still smells on me.]" This is an everlasting example prejudice, as
juror 10 is accusing a large number of people who have all lived in a slum including juror 5 to be
considered real trash. This prejudice is not classified as race discrimination but because of his
background. This prejudice is applied to the boy accused of murder by other

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

Justice In Twelve Angry Men, By Reginald Rose
]In this trial, there are twelve angry men. These men are the jurors deciding a 19–year old's fate of
life or death. So in the drama Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose's shows justice through motif,
dialogue, and imagery. The first way Reginald Rose shows justice is with a couple motifs. Like
when the jurors do the first vote "guilty, guilty, guilty, not guilty."(26 Rose) This shows justice on
how everyone thought the boy was mainly guilty in the start cause it's 11–1 guilty. Next, when the
jurors decide to do another vote in the middle of the trial and they said " guilty, not guilty, guilty,
guilty, not guilty, not guilty, guilty, not guilty, not guilty, guilty, not guilty, guilty."(45–46 Rose) This
is starting to show how that one juror that voted not guilty in the beginning vote is starting to change
justice by changing the other juror's mind because it's 6–6 even on the vote. Then kinda near the last
vote there "not guilty, nine, all those voting guilty, three"(59 Rose). This shows how now everyone
has mostly changed and the boy will most likely be free. These motifs show how an opposition ...
Like when the jurors are talking and say " In what way was it obvious? I mean that nobody proved
otherwise."(18 Rose) Juror eight is talking to juror two talking about if there sure the boy is actually
guilty. Next, the jurors argue about "He didn't have any ticket stub. Who keeps a ticket stub at the
movies?"(18 Rose) Now they're arguing if he really went to the movies to see if he is really guilty or
not. Next, when they talk about the knife they said" Where did you get it? I got it in a little junk
shop around the corner from the boy's house. It cost two dollars."(24 Roses) This shows where all
the jurors are arguing of the boy really used that knife to kill the father or the bot really dropped the
knife out of his pocket. This shows how dialogue can show communication which can prove proof
and justice

Integrity In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men
A 1950's play, 'Twelve Angry Men' written by Reginald Rose is set on a very hot afternoon, entirely
in one room and is based on a story of a jury who have to come together to determine the fate of a
16–year–old boy, accused to have murdered his own father. As the men argue endlessly over the
evidence, the fundamental ideas of achieving a just verdict becomes clear. Rose creates drama and
tension in the jury room, clearly discovering the quality in which integrity is essential to be a
member of a jury. This aspect of integrity has been shown through the three characters of Juror 8,
Juror 9 and Juror 3.
From the very start, Juror 8 announced his perspective of the case and continued to pursue with the
same 'not guilty' thought throughout the

Conformity And Social Psychological Processes In Twelve...
Over the weekend I watched the 1957 version of Twelve Angry Men. It was a great film to watch.
The film deals with the deliberations of a jury deciding the fate of a young man accused of murder.
The film highlights a host of social psychological processes. I will focus on three of them
conformity, the social influence, and aggression.
The first social psychological process exhibited in the movie was conformity. conformity can be
positive or negative. It is defined as the tendency to align your attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors with
those around you. I noticed this concept in the scene when all 12 members of the jury were at a table
trying to come up with a guilty verdict. This scene is an example of conformity because when the
jury was trying to decide if the teen were guilty or not two men was going back and forth with each
other. They both had diverse ways of thinking and had a different feeling about the teen. You can tell
they both had an attitude because both of their behavior started to change. When one ... Show more
Social influence is defined when a person's emotions, opinions, or behaviors are affected by others
in a group. I noticed this concept in the scene at the beginning when all 12 juries were at the table.
The jury was going around the room listening to each other opinion on why the teen was guilty or
not. This scene is an example of social influence because one of the juries got up and explain to the
rest of the jury how the teen was guilty. He went on explaining how the teen went to juvenile for
throwing a rock at his teacher, how he was 14 years old and stole a car, and by explaining how he
was arrest twice for trying to knife a kid. The man on the jury was going on and on about how he
was a bad kid and the rest of the jury shook their head and agree with him. With his behavior
changing and him getting up and sharing his opinion, he affected other people in the

Twelve Angry Men
Twelve Angry Men The film is about a young boy from slum, who experienced domestic violence
by his father for a long time, is accused of being the murderer of the death of his father. Twelve
jurors need to decide whether the young boy is guilty or not guilty and must be unanimous. At first,
only Juror 8 votes for "not guilty". After a drastic debate and some conflicts, all other jurors agree
on the reasonable doubts and vote for "not guilty". I like the film that it shows me what does the
jurors do and how does they work. Also, the plot is ups and downs makes me look forward to the
ending. One things I dislike about the film was hard to distinguish the two old men. I would
recommend this film to my friends since it tells us never make a judgement only based on
someone's background and always think deeply. In the previous weekly discussions, I think active
listening and preparing for discussion are important. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The twelve jurors are an example of working in a group and the process of unanimous resolution of
"not guilty" is an example of problem solving in groups. After 10 jurors vote for "not guilty", Juror
4 explains and list out the strong evidence makes him think the boy is guilty which is an example of
expressing yourself clearly. He reflects on to the previous discussion and asks Juror 8 how to
explain the testimony of the woman. Juror 3 is an example of not doing listening for understanding.
He insists on the boy is guilty even all the testimonies are proved to have reasonable doubts. One of
the juror brings a list with all the evidences on it is an example of preparing for discussion. Juror 1
is an example of guiding discussion who asks other jurors vote and talk about theirs reasons for
theirs vote. Also, he is an example of leading the group. He tries to get the group to make a
unanimous decision and listen to everyone's

Twelve Angry Men
"Twelve Angry Men" is an interesting story about the evolution of thoughts under life and death
circumstances. In the beginning of the story we find that an eighteen–year–old boy is on trial for the
murder of his abusive father. A jury of twelve men of different ages is brought together in a closed
room in order to deliberate over the facts of the case. If they find the boy guilty, then he will be put
to death on an electric chair. As the stories proceeds they realize the gravity of the situation and the
implications of their decision.
Since all facts and evidence lined up against the boy, almost all of the jurors vote "guilty" however,
one juror surprisingly votes "not guilty". The other members are up in arms wondering why this was
his vote ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Obviously these group of randomly selected individuals (the jury) have no clue about each other,
their backgrounds and personalities. In fact, they don't even know each others names but they must
still, for that brief time come together to make such an important decision.
Over the span of the movie we see that each of the characters adds their own experience as it relates
to the case and they have their own unique perspective on it. Juror 8, puts himself in the young boys
shoes. He imagines how difficult life would've been having been abused from a very young age.
One of the jurors is clouded by his own strained relationship with his son. Over the course of action
he gets so worked up that he has an emotional outbreak. He goes through deep anger and eventually
sadness. He then becomes aware of the misdirected anger and he too eventually changes his vote to
not guilty.
This brings us to the point of prejudice. We are supposed to tackle cases with a lack of bias and only
look at the facts as they are. Still it is often hard to completely rid oneself of judging another person
or situation. One of the jurors judges the suspect because he belongs to the ghetto. His preexisting
bias clouds his judgment here. However when this comes to light he realizes how wrong he was and
that he wasn't able to think

Twelve Angry Men ': Reginald Rose's Facts And Fancy'
Testimonials English Works
Home
Publications
School Support
Classes
FAQs
Blog
Contact us
Home › Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose
Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose "Facts and fancy" by Dr Jennifer Minter (English Works
articles)
At the beginning of Reginald Rose's play, Twelve Angry Men (1955), the judge states, "it now
becomes your duty to try to separate the facts from the fancy". At stake is the fate of a 16–year–old
boy who is on trial for the murder of his father. As the discussion unfolds, many difficulties emerge
among the 12 jurors whose various experiences and backgrounds as well as their varied life
narratives fuel tension.
It is not irrelevant either, that Rose sets the play in the heady period of the 1950s – a period of post–
war ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The 8th juror says, "I started to feel that the defence counsel wasn't doing his job. He let too many
things go. Little things." (13).
Similarly other jurors also have personal commitments and experiences that make them more likely
to react to the evidence in different ways and many discount the seriousness of their legal
responsibilities.
The 7th juror is more concerned about the baseball match.
The 10th juror is uncomfortably suffering from a flu, which predisposes him to a hasty resolution.
The three "classical unities"
The Aristotelian unities or three unities are rules for frama derived from a passage in Aristotle's
Poetics. They involve: the unity of action: a play should have one main action that it follows, with
no or few subplots; the unity of place: a play should cover a single physical space; and the unity of
time: the action in a play should take place over no more than 24 hours.
Rose uses the three unities of setting, plot and time, to accentuate the fragility of the system and to
focus the audience's attention on the deliberation process itself and the interaction among the jurors.

Twelve Angry Men
Time: 1957
Place: New York City Courtroom
Case: An African–American teenager has been accused of murdering his father.
On April 14th, 1951, Reginald Rose, a thirty–one–year–old army veteran published his second, and
most prominent dramatic work entitled Twelve Angry Men. This play is now admired as a
momentous, eloquent and critical examination of the United States jury system. Twelve Angry Men
examines key courtroom themes including civil duty and reasonable doubt. Through the voice of
these twelve men, the audience must ask themselves imperative questions regarding the American
court system, moral responsibility and the role of emotions in a verdict. The selection of jurors is
indeed a very complicated process. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
After this introductory clash of morals and ideals, the jurors must now review the case and reach a
unanimous verdict. This play, and a substantial amount of literature and research, demonstrates that
the American system of jurisprudence is imperfect. "Twelve men are put in a hot, crowded room and
asked to decide the fate of an accused murderer. In doing so they also return a verdict on the system
itself" ("12 Best") Despite attempts to create fairness and balance, "a jury of your peers" means that
emotion and personal prejudice are part of the process. In Twelve Angry Men, the effectiveness of
the jury process is questionable. "It's great that the play is...critical of the fact that the juror's
personal baggage is not checked at the door. Many critics argue that the jury system works against
justice because a jury

The Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose: An Analysis
"The Twelve Angry Men" by Reginald Rose is an examination of the American judicial system.
Through depicting what happens inside the jury room in New York City, the author manages to
illustrate the unique characteristics of each juror and presents the idea that facts can be different
depending on the individual presenting it. The murder of an African–American male by his son sets
the background of the story and leads to the discussions between the 12 jurors on whether the son is
guilty or not. The play centers its stage on juror 8, the only juror and refuses to let the case end
without a fair discussion on the case, and talks about his actions to persuade other juror into
eventually changing their votes. Strongly influenced by its time period,

Innocence Or Guilt In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men
In the world renowned play Twelve Angry Men, the accused's innocence or guilt is never resolved.
Set in the New York summer of 1957, the playwright Reginald Rose explores themes of prejudice
and the right to justice in his play and surprisingly finishes his play without a verdict. However there
are many signs which directly encourage the reader to believe that the defendant is not guilty. The
quintessential nature of this epiphany is displayed when Juror 3 finally concedes that the defendant
is not guilty and all 12 jurors walk out of the jury room. This is a solid example of the accused's
guilt being resolved.
Reginald Rose's play Twelve Angry Men underlines the need for the jury to find reasonable doubt
and not to make judgments on the defendant because of his religion, race, creed or colour. The
playwright wrote his play during the build–up of cordial ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Many Americans were afraid of Communist ideals and the common belief was that it was a menace
to (western) civilisation. The fear was so great that the American government set up a House of Un–
American Activities Committee (HUAC) in order to defend the American from Communist beliefs.
Headed by Senator Joe McCarthy, HUAC trials took place against famous movie stars as well as
ordinary Americans such as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Communist ideals were so feared that it
was possible to be deported from the country, however a casual trip to the penitentiary was the usual
punishment. Rose introduces this theme in his play with the defendant. The accused is a 16 year old
male who comes from a slum background (Rose is possibly leading the reader to believe that the
defendant is of African American or Hispanic decent), spent time in a reform school, and has a
criminal record including mugging and assault with a knife. It is clear from the outset of the
deliberation that verdict is going to be embedded with pre–conceived notions and prejudiced ideals.
An example of this is Juror 4, who

A Brief Comparison Of Twelve Angry Men And On The Waterfront

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Sue Jones

More from Sue Jones (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A Brief Comparison Of Twelve Angry Men And On The Waterfront