Diversity In 12 Angry Men

The 1957 film 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, tells the story of a jury made up of twelve men, as they contemplate the sentencing of a young man accused of murder. As the name implies, many of the jurors become extremely emotional as the deliberation process moves on. The jurors’ emotions and unique personalities create various conflicts and show how they each have differing perspectives on the trial. Throughout the deliberation process it becomes clear that several of the jurors harbor personal prejudices which end up affecting their decisions in reaching a verdict. It is clear from the beginning that if not for one juror, known as Juror 8, the jury would have returned a unanimous guilty verdict with no deliberation.

Moreover, due to the judicial system encouraging fairness to selecting its members, these angry twelve men shared a demographic diversity present during the deliberation. This was another factor to their difficulties because their biased opinions came from their backgrounds. For example, one of the jurors tried to justify the accused action based on where the child was raised at. Yet, he was not aware of the fact that two of the jurors also grew up in that

The play ‘Twelve Angry Men’ written by playwright Reginald Rose. The play conveys an optimistic view of society and the justice system. Set in New York 1957, the play delves into the journey of twelve ordinary men as they struggle to come to a unanimous decision, which in effect will determine the fate of a young boy. The play empowers diversity rather than continuity by composing a cross-section of characters that embrace their differences. The playwright exhibits the notion that prejudices and biases are factors in every dispute and can mask the truth. Additionally, Rose depicts the dangers of a jury system that relies on 12 individual men that unanimously try to reach a life or death decision.

The movie "Twelve Angry Men" was about twelve totally different men who came from many different cultural backgrounds and grew up in different types of environments. They all had their own beliefs and opinions. Their challenge was to decide on the innocence of a young boy accused of committing murder. In the beginning only one man thought that the boy was not guilty and felt that he should at least be given a fair trial. However the other 11 men of the jury quickly judged the boy to be guilty.

In a crowded jury room in downtown New York, opinions interfere as an argumentation about the guiltlessness of a young defendant is decided. The dark and foreboding storm clouds that suspend over the heads of the jurors are conception to lift as time advances and new facts are presented. 12 Angry Men had discussed one issue under a manner of prejudice and it was different for each juror.

Human nature is to jump to conclusions and agree with the majority, but Juror 8 stood apart and likely saved the boy from the charge of 1st-degree murder. In today's society, some people still face racism, so the racism that Juror 10 demonstrated, in the beginning, is still relevant today because it is a problem that some still face. Democracy, which is still essential today, is shown throughout the movie so individuals have a fair chance at trial. The film 12 Angry Men can be used in a classroom setting to show the importance of leadership values and principles, especially emphasizing teamwork and the decision-making

Question Setting aside the issue of diversity - a jury in 2017 is unlikely to be all white and all male - do you think that this group of characters, with their assorted personalities and prejudices, is representative of a typical jury today? Why or why not? Response I believe that the jury depicted in Twelve Angry Men is an excellent representation of a modern jury.

Idealized Influence – defined by the values, morals, and ethical principles of a leader and is manifest through behaviours that supress self interest and focus on the good of the collective.

In the novel “twelve angry men” prejudice affects the choices of the vote and I believe that when you decide, certainty is best, so you should probably base your opinion on facts. So I stand and say that I would have voted no and that I and the rest of the jury should discuss further. In the novel, it is often described by how awful of a life this boy had and how wrongfully treated he had been. So juror number eight felt the need to give him a chance. “He had a pretty terrible sixteen years. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That's all.” Showing justice is what it's all about and that is one of the reasons I would stand by these words and that boy. The first statement holds the following, the word of justice, a word defined as being fair

Through Twelve Angry Men Flim, the author, Reginald Rose, paints a picture of a small portion of American society in the mid-1950s. At this time, the United States was envolving into an internal struggle, the Civil Rights Movement, which was concerned with ending racism discrimination and promoting freedom, respect and equality. Rose’s movie presents domestic conflicts which exist in a stereotypical American society and politic in 1950s in America. 12 Angry Men is the story of 12 jurors who must decide if a boy is guilty or not guilty of killing his father. It takes place in New York City Court of Law jury room where 12 jurors must come a unanimous conclusion. A great deal of logical fallacies were presented by jurrors in attempt to prove that the defendent as guilty.

Back in 1957 MGM released a film directed by Sidney Lumet that is considered a masterpiece today same as it was back then. There is a very good reason for that, this film has aged very well. It deals with the same topics we have to deal with in today's society. Today it seems people are just as divided as they were in the 50's. That is what 12 Angry Men does so well, it handles the topic of prejudice. How does it show this? 12 Angry Men shows us different jurors with different prejudices that are revealed through their attitudes, beliefs, and words.

The film Twelve Angry Men shows many social psychology theories. This film presents some jurors who must decide if an accused murderer is guilty or innocent. In the beginning, all but one juror voted for guilty. Eventually, however, they come to a non-guilty verdict. It shows how a various group of individuals react to a situation that no one wants to be involved in. Twelve Angry Men exhibits so many examples of the true power of informational social influence and normative social influence. According to informational social influence, individuals tend to comply with others because they believe that another individuals version of a situation is more valid than their own. Normative social influence is a type of social influence that leads to conformity. This theory seems to fit in along with this movie because of the way the juror’s decisional processes went. Informational social influence is aggravated by obscurity and doubt of situation, importance of being correct, time constriction, and presence of those recognized as professionals. Just within the first few minutes of the movie, social influence is shown. In the jury room, a heated debate is prevented by an initial vote. This vote, which was taken publicly, was vulnerable to normative social influence or conformity from the fear of seeming in submissive. An obvious feeling of doubt is presented as the jurors vote. This hesitance can be perceived as weak conviction swayed by the guilty majority’s influence. Time constraints intensify informational social influence and possibly helped play a role in causing some of the jurors to cast guilty, conformist votes. Majority influence and social impact theory generate conformity. These theories are relevant in the jury context and are relevant to an explanation of Twelve Angry Men. Social impact theory specifies the situational and personal factors that bring on conformity. Conformity is enhanced by the immediacy element of social impact theory which brings to belief that without anonymity conflict is increasingly difficult. Perception of norms is apparently a factor that also brings out conformity. Stereotyping and prejudice were rampant at the time Twelve Angry Men was filmed. The director and writers cleverly

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

In the movie 12 Angry Men, the jurors are set in a hot jury room while they are trying to determine the verdict of a young man who is accused of committing a murder. The jurors all explain why they think the accused is guilty or not guilty. Throughout the movie they are debating back and forth and the reader begins to realize that even though the jurors should try to not let bias cloud their judgement, the majority of the jurors are blinded by bias. The viewer can also see that the jurors have their own distinguishable personalities. Their personalities intertwine with each other to demonstrate how the jury system is flawed, but that is what makes it work.

Ignorance and racism are seeded deep within the nooks and crannies of our society. While it may not be visible at first glance I can assure you, it is engraved in the back of the brains of a portion of our population. A literary example of such behavior can be found in Twelve Angry Men, By Reginald Rose. The book is set in a jury room where 12 men debate the innocence or guilt of a teenage boy accused of murdering his father. However, one of the Jurors (Juror 10) has racist beliefs that greatly affect the debate. Should men like Juror 10 be on a jury?