12 Angry Men Essay

Inside a room where life or death decisions are made, twelve men sit with wandering thoughts. The made up minds of some jurors are to send a boy to his death without a second thought, but one other juror may change that. Inside of the play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose, Juror 8 has the persuasive evidence to change the minds of his fellow Jurors and save a boy from his execution. The other Juror’s seem like they won’t budge with their mind set on the decision of guilty, but after Juror 8 proves his thoughts on the decision of innocent, he may just be able to save a young life.

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.

Juror #8 was the most steadfast juror, insisting that whether the boy was guilty or not, they owed it to the young man to look at all the evidence and come to an objective conclusion. Juror #8 tasks the other jurors with reconsidering their lines of reasoning consistently throughout the play. Juror #3 was just as determined to oppose every point Juror #8 made, calling his proposals on how the murder may have been committed “fairytales“. 27) and “fantastic stories” (pg. 34). As the story goes on we can see the progression of the jurors' mindsets shift, having been forced to take a more in-depth look into the case by Juror #8 as he insisted “There’s a life at stake here”(pg.18). Arguably, the entire play is centered on enhancing jurors perspectives and consciously avoiding personal bias in a court of law.

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.

The last major fact that influences the juries agreement that the accused is not guilty are doubts of another witness’s testimony; the lady across the street who supposedly saw the accused young man stab his father. The jurors started talking about needing glasses to read the clock when Juror 8 realizes that the lady used very strong glasses and it is not possible that she could have had time to put them on and see the young man clearly stab his father. Juror 8 says,

In the book 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, the jurors took a vote to see what everyone thought of the case and if they could come to a swift decision without having to debate. The vote turned out eleven to one in favor of guilty. In the United States criminal justice system one of the most coveted concepts “innocent until proven guilty” is to be used in such a case. The jurors all vote guilty immediately because Juror Three describes the defendant as such; “The man’s a dangerous killer. You could see it” (Rose 11).

In the movie “12 Angry Men” 12 jurors must come to a verdict on whether or not an 18-year-old boy is guilty of the murder of his father. The 12 jurors began the meeting, and every juror voted guilty except for juror #8. Juror #8 sheds light upon doubts about the evidence and the testimonies made by witnesses. As the meeting proceeded, the jurors bickered back and forth, some with preconceived notions and others with differing ideas. As the party tries to come to a unanimous decision, personal issues arise, resulting in heated arguments threatening to derail the process of the jury.

In the movie there was an allegation that a young boy had killed his father. The neighbor claimed to have woken up in the middle of the night, looked through the windows of a passing el train just in time to see the boy stabbing his father. Another neighbor stated that he heard the son scream “I’ll kill you”, heard the father’s body hit the floor, and made it to his front door just in time to see the boy running away from the scene. The neighbors “saw” and “heard” the incident, so to most of the jurors, being the realist that they are, they had no choice to believe the murder to be true. Davis, Juror eight, had an entirely different way of thinking.

After the jury had their time to share their opinions, groups based on their decision started to form. Jurors slowly started to have a reasonable doubt in their mind and change their opinion. In the beginning all but one, juror no. 8, felt that the boy must have been guilty. Since most of jurors were uncomfortable with each other in the beginning they grouped together because they felt it was right, but as the case progressed they started to see what is right and group with those who supported them. It came to a point where juror no. 3 was “[all] alone,” (Rose 29). Every other juror grouped together in support that the boy who was being trialed was not guilty, in which led to connections being formed between the jurors. Even through all of the convincing and effort put into having juror no. 3 change his opinion, they were not able to make any progress. Juror no. 3, being an extremely opinionated man, nothing was going to change his mind so the jury had to wrap up their vote. Having the jury wrap of their discussion and come to a final vote begins the fifth stage of development. The jury is going to submit their final decision and say goodbye. Not much is said because there is still disagreement between the two groups of jurors. Before juror no. 8 leaves he hopes that “maybe in a few months, [juror no. 3 will] get some sleep,” (Rose 30). That was his way of saying

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.”

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.

Mr. Davis is the character in this film the audience can learn the most from. He’s the only jury member to originally vote not guilty, and when the eleven other members find out a litter of resentful comments are hurled his way. The men complain that Davis is wasting their time, and that he is trying to let a guilty man go free. Mr. Davis acknowledges all the angry jabs without batting an eye, and calmly explains his reasoning. His arguments methodically poke holes in the pile of faulty evidence presented by the prosecution. He uses reasoning and open-mindedness to view the case while the other men allow prejudices and outside influences to alter their ideas. An article from the New York Times discussing the increasingly notable problem of closed minded jurors said this; “Such jurors tend to make up their minds far earlier than others, and by the time they enter the jury room for deliberation they cannot be budged.” Mr. Davis was dealing with multiple closed-minded jurors yet he managed to succeed. He showed the audience courage enough to stand and face a room full of men who disagreed with him, which is something most can’t do.

It must be very disappointing to take blame for something you did not do. In the play " Twelve Angry Men " by Reginald Rose, act one, most of the jurors said their statements without enough evidence and almost sentenced the kid guilty. Later on, the jurors change their minds because of the evidence presented to them. Therefore, the author shows you should not go along with what you hear without proof.

The film uses juror three to demonstrate how past experiences can influence ones prejudice in decision making. Juror 3, who has a prejudice against the accused, and thinks the kid is under-privileged and doesn’t deserve a second chance, which is reason enough for him to conclude the accused is guilty. As the discussion continues as to the verdict of the trial, juror three grows frustrated and angrily refutes, “What is this? Love your under- privileged bother week or something? (12 Angry Men). Due to his past experiences with young men, he is ready to sentence the defendant to death with weak circumstantial evidence, grows angry as the other jurors question what he refers to as “facts” and claims “You can’t refute facts” (12 Angry Men) As all the Jurors except juror twelve get more and more frustrated by the slowed process, juror three begins to see through his prejudice, and disperses the other jurors interruptions by saying “Be quiet, we’ll all get a turn”(12 Angry Men). It finally becomes clear, he sees similarities with his son he had a falling out with several years ago, and puts this prejudice aside and excepts that the evidence is too circumstantial to convict a kid for murder, and sentence him to death.

During the film, logic was required on everyone’s part. They were deciding on an eighteen-year-old kid’s life! It was not a decision to be made quickly. Mr. Davis realizes this and is the only one to vote ‘not guilty’ when taking the first vote (Lumet). Logic came into play because Mr. Davis thought logically about all of the evidence presented and because of this he felt that there was a reasonable doubt and could therefore, not sentence the young man. Throughout the rest of the film, we see more of the men thinking logically, for example, when Juror Nine realizes that the woman who claims she witnessed the murder, wore glasses and would not have been able to clearly see the boy if she claimed to be laying in bed trying to fall asleep. Another example is when juror number five, who grew up in the same area of town that the defense did, shows the proper way of using a switchblade knife, making a logical