The Classic 1957 Movie 12 Angry Men Delves In To A Panel

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”.

Juror No. 8 wasn’t trying to defend the boy he was just doing his job, because of that he slowly became a hero without knowing it. Juror No. 8 could of went and decide to choose guilty but he didn’t because he knows it wouldn’t be right not even sharing a thought about it. He continued to convince all eleven jurors that their was reasonable doubt and that the boy was

Unlike Terry Malloy, who does not find the strength to stand alone until the end, Juror 8 causes conflict from the beginning of the play because he is upfront and stands alone against the others. In the beginning of the play, Juror 8 is the only one to refuse to raise his hands to ‘send a boy to die’ when all the others do, and stands strong when the others dismiss his opinion saying ‘there’s always one, boy oh boy’. Juror 8 doesn’t show remorse, because he shows integrity and compassion and stands for what he believes in. Juror 8 was confident during the conflict, unlike Terry who sought advice and encouragement. Juror 8 is so sure that he is doing the right thing that he admits that he ‘broke the law’ to produce a switch knife that could undermine the prosecution’s case against the Boy.

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

Juror #8 is a calm and reasonable man which makes it easier for him to judge the case fairly and justly without any prejudice. Juror #8 never said he believed the defendant to be innocent he only wanted to take the role of being a juror seriously and talk about the case before a young boy is sent off to die. “I’m not trying to change your mind it’s just that we’re talking about somebody’s life here… we can’t decide in five minutes.” Because he brings no prejudice in the jury room he is able to look at the facts and carefully decide on his judgement. Juror #8 recognizes other peoples prejudice and tries not to convince them that the boy is innocent but to have them let go of that prejudice and decide based on the facts whether they truly believe the defendant is guilty or not. Rose uses both juror

Similarly ,In Twelve Angry Men Juror 8 is a smart and moral juror who is willing to stand against all the other jurors for what he thinks is right. He is the main protagonist who believes a boy accused with murdering his father deserves a discussion prior to a guilty verdict. Although all the other jurors initially voted guilty, juror 8 believed that the jurors should not “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”(Juror 8, 12). Throughout the play Juror 8 combats the pressure from the other Jurors to just vote guilty and manages to convince his fellow Jurors one by one that there in fact is “reasonable doubt”(Judge, 6) and convinces them to arrive at a “not guilty”(Juror 3, 72) verdict. Reginald Rose extols Juror 8’s pursuit of justice through his success. Not only did Juror 8 stand by his principles and have the courage to stand against all the other Jurors, he also had the wits to convince his fellow jurors to change their verdict. Through these actions Juror 8 brings justice to the courts of New York city saving the life of a young boy.

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 film "12 angry men", we can see that there is no sensitivity towards the kid that is blamed for homicide of his dad. Most of the legal jurors felt that there ought to be no requirement for sensitivity since the greater part of the proof that was brought into the court has smashed the safeguard and the kid's chance on trial. The arraignment made it clear that the kid is truth be told guilty. In the underlying vote that was finished by the legal jurors, everyone votes "guilty" against the kid aside from member of juror eight. This is the place we see the significance of juror eight in light of his sensible uncertainty the jury had not found the kid liable inside of the initial 10 minutes of their debating, which would have finished the trial. Juror eight did not as a matter of course trust that the kid was blameless, but rather he realized that on the off chance that he had raised his hand at the vote, it would all end, and they won't have an opportunity to talk about the case. Juror eight in eyes trusted that if the case finished, then it will put down the value of human life.

But that statement made the third juror made saying he’d kill the 8th juror, but earlier in the play that’s exactly what the boy said to his father hours before the killing, and to the audience it shows how things can be used as an exaggeration. So, once that happens the votes are tied. Juror 8 now breaks apart the fact that the boy couldn’t remember the movies he supposedly saw, but says in that kind of state of trauma it could be difficult. They also discuss how the murderer used a switchblade the wrong way, and that there was no way that the boy would use it the wrong was as he was very experienced. Juror 8 goes on and sees if it was also actually possibly for the other witness (the woman) to actually see the murder. They test it as well and find it also highly unlikely that she put on her glasses in time enough for her to see. So, all that’s left on the “guilty” verdict is 10 and 8, and 10 changes his verdict to “not guilty” after being quickly shut down about his comments. So, now that only 8 is left, they have a somewhat difficult time convincing him, but he does change his verdict to “not guilty”. The story ends with the rain stopping and the knife still sticking in the

2). In this movie, juror number eight is the one who is outstanding. When everyone else believes the eighteen year old boy was guilty of the murder he is on trial for, Davis does not. He stands up for what he believes in because this is someone’s life that is being affected. He does not think that this boy truly is guilty of this murder.

Since juror number 8 didn’t agree with the rest of the jurors, he had to support his claim with the evidence that was presented. He talked about the evidence that was collected from the crime. Some of the evidence is strong and makes sense. Juror number 8 made several good points and one of them was that it was not possible for the old man to have heard the yell. The juror claimed that the old man had poor hearing and there was a train that passed by the house around the same time the killing occurred. Therefore, how was it possible for the yell to have been heard? This evidence relates to the rest of the evidence collected. The old man was not a good witness to the case and so the juror had to continue to state the rest of the evidence in order to convince the other men that the boy was not guilty. Another strong point that the writer made in this film is the physical evidence that was used in the case. There was not much

317), drawing you in with each of the 12 men's take on the evidence they were presented with during the trial. The accused murderer, a young man on trail for stabbing his father to death, is seen only briefly, as the film focusses on the conflict between the 12 jurors, the titular 12 angry men, as they debate what verdict to deliver, knowing the stacks are literally life and death, as a guilty verdict will result in the death penalty. The 12 men, identified only by their juror numbers and occupations, assemble in a bare, uncomfortable jury room and quickly establish that most are prepared to render a guilty verdict and are eager to leave. But Fonda’s Juror 8 appeals for proper deliberation of reasonable doubt with a young man’s life in their hands. The men begin stating their arguments, debating the evidence presented during the trial and try to convince one another of the accused’s guilt or

Juror #8 was much more successful with his critical thinking since the beginning of the movie. He was the only one of the jurors that voted not guilty. He expressed that “it’s not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first” when he is being

In the movie of 12 Angry Men, a group of jurors must decide the fate of an inner-city boy, who is charged with killing his father. The case should have been a slam dunk, yet one man (Juror No. 8) in the initial vote cast reasonable doubt over the evidence of the trial. While deliberating their verdict, the details are revealed. Subsequently, the jurors slowly changed their vote to innocent on the basis of doubt. Despite their duty to separate personal matters from the facts, the jurors complicate their decisions with stereotypes, past experiences, and opinions. Although they were faced with different perspectives, the men came together to a unanimous consensus.

The movie 12 Angry Men is a depiction of a jury deliberation in the 1950’s involving the trial of a teenager that is accused of murdering his father. These twelve men were brought together by a random selection process to make a unanimous decision. In the beginning, all jurors believed the boy to be guilty without a doubt, except for one. Juror 8 continues to raise questions pertaining to the facts presented, while slowly convincing the other jurors to take another look before determining the boy’s fate. Many people would say that their purpose was to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant, but in reality they have no way of knowing if the teen is innocent; in the end, all they can have is reasonable doubt.