12 Angry Men: Comparing The Play And Movie

There was only one juror that gave this kid his benefit of the doubt, which was juror no. 8( his description reads,” A man who sees all sides and seeks the truth. He wants justice to be served and will fight to see that it is”). The facts were being analyzed once more as juror no.8 had felt everyone wrote the case as a textbook murder, open and close. The jury had viewed the knife that was used to kill the father being unique , that no one has never seen a knife like that before. As this discussion is raging on, Juror no.8 slams a knife on the table, embedding it into the table next to the murder weapon… an exact copy. Both knives were purchased

This case was one of truth and justice. It becomes evident when the Juror 9 says to Juror 10. ‘Do you think you have a monopoly on truth?' [Juror 9, page 8] The fact is, nobody really knows what the truth is, and at the end of the play, still nobody does. The boy may have been guilty, but as Juror 8 pointed out, who were they to make that assumption? Most of the Jurors had taken for granted that what the prosecution had told them was the truth. Through much discussion the Jurors realised that this may

The setting of 12 Angry Men is a jury deliberation room where the jurors are and required to decide the guilt or innocence of an 18 year old that is accused of committing first-degree murder by stabbing his father with a switchblade knife. Witnesses were presented to give evidence of hearing a quarrel; hearing a threat to kill, and have seeing the boy run away. Another witness swore to having seen the boy stabbing his father from a window across from where the murder occurred. Eleven jurors were convinced the boy was guilty and deserved the death penalty. One raised questions he felt had not been asked or had not been pursued by the defense.

This quote from Act one of 12 Angry Men shows a lot about character Three and character Eight. This quote shows a lot of characterization for Three because it shows that Juror Three could be very prejudice. The boy being tried was from the slums, so Juror Three assumes that he would be a killer. Juror Three bases this just on looks when he says that you “could see it”. Although Juror Eight rebuts that remark when asking”where do you look to see if a man is a killer.” This quote from Juror Eight shows that he is a lot less prejudice and thinks more about personality and

This essay will compare & contrast the protagonist/antagonist's relationship with each other and the other jurors in the play and in the movie versions of Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men. There aren't any changes made to the key part of the story but yet the minor changes made in making the movie adaptation produce a different picture than what one imagines when reading the drama in the form of a play.

A boy may die,” and changes his vote to “not guilty” which is another instance where the boy gets a fair trial. The 12th and 7th juror find it difficult to decide on which way to vote and therefore vote “not guilty” so that the boy is not “sent off to die.” The 12th juror’s lack of a defined and consistent point of view reflects America’s post war materialism. The 4th juror believed that the defendant was guilty for most of the play but then was the 2nd last juror to change his vote and admitted that he had a “reasonable doubt.” Although the audience never finds out whether the defendant was “guilty” or “not guilty” the jurors give the “kid from the slums” an honest trial.

Twelve Angry Men, is a play written by Reginald Rose. The play is about the process of individuals and a court case, which is determining the fate of a teenager. It presents the themes of justice, independence and ignorance. Rose emphasises these three themes through the characters and the dialogue. Justice is the principle of moral rightness or equity. This is shown through juror number eight who isn’t sure whether or not the boy is actually innocent or guilty, but he persists to ask questions and convinces the other jurors to think about the facts first. Independence is shown through both juror number three and ten. They both believe that the defendant is guilty until they both realise that they can not relate there past experiences with

One piece of evidence that proves the boy’s innocence is the height of the father. This takes an effect on the evidence against the boy because he is 6 inches shorter than his father was. So it would have been harder for the boy to stab the dad it would of taking

The classic 1957 movie 12 Angry Men delves in to a panel of twelve jurors who are deciding the life or death fate of an eighteen year old italian boy accused of stabbing his father to death. The twelve men selected as jurors are a diverse group, each coming to the table with their own socioeconomic backgrounds, personal experiences, prejudice’s, and all of this plays a role in the jurors attitudes and/or misconceptions of the accused young man. How each of the jurors, all but Juror Eight played by Henry Fonda, experiences and personalities impact their original vote of guilty is clear at the beginning of the movie with the first vote. However, from the start, Juror Eight displays confidence, and demonstrates leadership abilities utilizing

The murder weapon was supposedly a one-of-a-kind knife, but Juror 8 had the same knife in his pocket that he picked up at a pawn shop a few blocks away from the boy’s house. Even though buying and selling switchblades was illegal. Also, Juror 8 held a vote where if everyone voted guilty, Juror 8 would change his vote and send it into the judge. While Juror 9 was the one to change his vote and allow the talk to continue, it never would’ve happened if not for Juror 8. Lastly, Juror 8 took a risk by trying to put together all the witnesses’ testimony. He guessed at how long an el train took to pass a point and then put with the unlikelihood of the man hearing “I’m going to kill you.” All these claims could’ve meant a guilty verdict if not for Juror

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

The last fact that I have is that the boy was accused of stabbing his dad in a downward motion. That would not have been accurate evidence because the boy was an experienced knife fighter. An experienced knife fighter would not have stabbed like that.

The murder weapon, the knife was greatly debated in the court. The exceptionality of the knife was making the boy appear to be guilty of committing the hideous crime of murdering his own father. In order to prove this juror 8 managed to purchase a similar type of knife from the boy’s neighbourhood shop showing that it was not that unique. Juror 8 tells the jury that he doesn’t want them to accept his hypothesis but it could be a possibility. Upon seeing the exactly similar knife the other jurors are told about the undependability of the prosecution and their evidence. This incident clearly shows that juror 8 just doesn’t want to prove the boy’s innocence but he wants to put a reasonable doubt about the boy’s guilt in the minds of all the other jurors.

In the play 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose there are many fallacies that shape the deliberations of the case. One of the most important elements of the play is the relationship between Juror 3, Juror 8 and Juror 10 at times. The constant conflict between the jurors is the main drive of the drama. Juror 10 was bitter and prejudice right from the start, it was not until Act III when he unleashes his bigotry. Juror 3 was always the antagonist from the beginning, he is quick to lose his temper with number 8 and the rest of the jury at times.

According the five Methods for Influencing Other Group Members - use of reason, assertiveness, coalition building, higher values, and bargaining - when Juror Eight said: “we are talking about somebody life here, we can’t just decide within five minutes, suppose we are wrong”, he used the youth human-being life’s important and the danger of a false decision as good reasons to force other jurors in analyzing the facts carefully. He then talks about the boy’s backgrounds for appealing to logic and rational thinking of other jurors. Juror Three was overt prejudice, hostility, and used “assertiveness” to influence the other ten jurors of jury provided an antagonist for juror Eight. Juror eight used “coalition building” method to seek alignment with other group members. He never says that he believes the defendant is innocent but his mantra throughout the movie was “it’s possible!” referring to the reasonable doubt, which he convinced others’ thought. Juror Eight continued to appeal other eleven juror’s higher values by repeatedly reinforcing their moral and judicial obligation to convict only if there was no reasonable doubt. He challenged each juror to look at the facts more thoughtfully. “Bargaining” is offering an instrument exchange. Juror 8 used this method when he said: “I want to call for another vote… If there are 11 votes for guilty, I won’t stand alone… But if anyone votes not guilty, we stay here and talk it out.”