12 Angry Men Core Values

1. Intro Many movies and plays use persuasion to persuade the audience into believing something that they want them to believe in. There are three major types of of techniques used to persuade someone. They are logos, pathos, ethos.

What drove juror nine and eight judgement’s of other is not to judge a person solely by their pass actions or where they come from, but with their current character. Juror eight was able change the other juror’s vote to not guilty. Juror nine made sure that vote was based off of stereotypes.The play “Twelve Angry Men” holds relevance for today, because there are negative stereotypes that can impact people's lives and result in not being judged fairly.

In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, three quotes stand out as the most important of the novel, which explained what the Jurors' opinions were on the boy. A quote that I found that supports that is, “He’s a common ignorant slob. He doesn’t even speak good English. ”(Rose 37) This shows us that he was trying to prove to the other jurors that he wasn’t bright and that the kid was guilty and there wasn’t more to it.

In the book The 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, 3 quotes in the novel stood out as the most important in the book showing the development of various characters. At the beginning of the play, the quote I found from Juror Number 8 shows character development that was happening during the first vote,” It’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first,” (Rose 12). This shows that he is a nice person and takes his job seriously. When voting not guilty, this caused the jurors to look back at the evidence, and without that vote, they could have convicted an innocent person without realizing it. Another quote I found was Juror 3 talking about how he would kill the kid as he has already made up his mind,

In the film, juror number eight had to examine every single aspect of the case (the knife used to kill the father, the train passing by, the witnesses, the witness’s complexion, etc.) in order to formulate his opinion without a doubt, so that no contributing factors had obscured the truth. In the light of critical

The film 12 angry men is a movie about how 12 men go into a room and discuss whether a kid is guilty or not guilty. 11 out of 1 of the men say he's guilty except the one Davis. He says the boy is not guilty, everyone begins to yell at him saying it's a pointless effort. he should just go ahead and vote guilty because the boy has witnesses and evidence against him. Davis Juror number eight.

Throughout the play, justice is most shown when deciding the outcome of this defendant. Juror Eleven explains how personal experiences should not bias one’s decision. Juror Eight has always displayed fairness throughout the case, especially when explaining how one’s motives should not influence the other’s decision. Lastly, Juror Ten explains how facts are more important when decided the defendant’s fate, and feelings should be kept silent. In the conclusion of 12 Angry Men, the author demonstrates how fairness will be chosen over pity or hatred when determining the offender’s

During the time Reginald Rose wrote the play Twelve Angry Men America was not an equal place for all people. A democracy is founded on the ideology that all Americans should be given a fair trial in court before being declared guilty. The twelve jurors in the play come from various backgrounds but initially, all but one vote in favor of the boy’s unforgivable sentence; while two other jurors lift two strong social stigmas and overcome their bias. One juror decided to stand up and take the time out for proper reasoning that resulted in teaching the others two jurors a lesson. Final verdicts should be made on justifiable grounds or the foundation of America’s society could be left at risk for collapse. Justifiable final verdicts are skewed

The film “Twelve Angry Men” directed by Sidney Lumet illustrates many social psychological principles. The tense, gripping storyline that takes place in the 1950s features a group of jurors who must decide unanimously whether a young man is guilty or innocent in the murder of his father. At the beginning, eleven of the twelve jurors voted guilty. Gradually, through some heated discussion, the jurors are swayed to a not-guilty verdict. Upon examination, the film highlights social psychology theories in areas of conformity and group influence.

Twelve Angry Men is a courtroom drama that was brought to the big screens in 1957. The storyline follows twelve men selected for jury duty, who are trying to reach a verdict on a young man’s trial following the murder of his father. Throughout the debates and voting, the men all reveal their personalities and motives behind their opinions. Because of all the differences of the men, their communication skills lack in some ways and are excellent in others. The three small group communication variables that I found portrayed throughout the movie were prejudice, past experience and preoccupation.

The movie 12 Angry Men takes place in a room of 12 jurors as they discuss the guilt of a boy charged with the murder of his father. The facts of the case have been laid out, and each juror already has decided how they feel. Initially the vote was 11-1 guilty. The one vote for not guilty came from Juror Number Eight, Mr. Davis, played by Henry Fonda. Mr. Davis voted not guilty because he had reasonable doubt about evidence presented by the prosecution. As Mr. Davis explains his reasoning behind his reasonable doubt, the core values of himself and other jurors are displayed. As the movie continues, the vote slowly turns from 11-1 guilty to 12-0 not guilty. Mr. Davis brings up point after point that force his fellow jurors to analyze themselves and in the end, change the way they vote. Ultimately, the 1957 film 12 Angry Men forces the audience to look inward after watching the juror’s words, manners, and priorities change throughout the jury session.

The 1957 movie version of 12 Angry Men, brings twelve people together with different personalities and experiences to discuss the fate of a young boy that allegedly killed his father. At the very beginning, many agree that the boy is guilty except for one man. Juror #8 votes not guilty and pushes to have the evidence talked through. After reviewing all the evidence carefully, the tables turned from guilty to not guilty. Each juror brought different experiences and personalities to the jury room. The two that were forceful with their opinions and their reasonings to decide either way we're jurors #8 and #3.

Henry Fonda, plays the role of juror number eight, who from the beginning keeps his conviction that the defendant is not guilty due to reasonable doubt. Fonda uses arguments and reasoning to convince the other jurors to deliver a not-guilty verdict. For each witness testimony, Fonda was able to raise doubt, like the L-train causing enough noise that the elderly neighbor would be unable to hear the father and son argue. As more jurors, changed their verdict to not-guilty, they took on the role as persuader, for example, juror number nine placed doubt on the female neighbor to be able to see the murder because of it was doubtful she was wearing her glasses. One by one, Fonda was able to convince the others to admit there was reasonable doubt.

In 12 Angry Men, jurors determined if a young, poor Puerto Rican man murdered his father. Initially, eleven of the men determined that the defendant was guilty of murder; however, one juror held that the defendant was innocent, and he believed the man deserved a chance at being proven innocent. After intense debate, the jury found the defendant not guilty. Even though this movie shows evidence of prejudice, groupthink, conformity, cognitive heuristics, the catalyst of change and minority influence benefitted the jury in making a unanimous, educated decision about the fate of the young man.

Twelve Angry Men is about a jury who must decide the fate of an 18 year old boy who allegedly killed his father. The jury must determine a verdict of guilty beyond any reasonable doubt and not guilty. A guilty verdict would mean that the accused would receive the death penalty. After a day of deliberation and many votes, they came up with the verdict of not guilty. I believe they achieved their overall goal of coming up with a verdict they were all able to agree with. It seems there were some individual personal short term goals that were not met. One being that the one juror was not able to go to the baseball game. Another was that a juror was not able to take out the anger he had towards his son on the son accused of killing his