Twelve men were picked from all walks of life, each with his own agenda, fears, and personal demons. At the beginning of the book, the jurors vote 11 to 1 to convict the defendant and send him to death for murder. The majority judged the defendant on some weak evidence, were biased against his ethnic background, and assumed for the most part. Only Juror 8 believed there was a reasonable doubt. He begins to share his perspective and by the end of the book they vote to acquit him. There were many events that led the jurors to change their minds so radically and set the defendant free. .
First, Juror 8 convinced the rest of the jury to listen to his doubts first. He first began to examine the evidence. Juror 8 was told that the murder weapon used was a unique one-of-a-kind knife. The knife was portrayed to be rare and exclusive in the trial. However, that information is wrong. On the contrary, it was actually available at the corner store. In fact, Juror 8 had the exact same knife. Any person could have bought a knife just like the original one and used it to murder the father. With reenactment, Juror 2 pointed out that in order for the weapon to enter into the victim's body like it had been, the murderer had to have been taller than the defendant. Therefore, the defendant could not have committed the crime.
After, Juror 8 beings to scrutinize the testimonies that were given. An elderly man stated that he heard the murder taking place and saw the boy run down the stairs. Juror 8 believes this to be impossible. There was a train passing by the old man's window at the time of the murder. He couldn't have been able to hear the murder taking place. He also would not have had enough time to see the boy. The old man was not as much of a reliable source as he was originally thought to be.
The second testimony was by a woman. The jurors considered her testimony as unshakable. She claimed that she had been in bed and casually glanced out the window and saw the boy stab his father with a knife through the windows of the passing train.
Twelve Angry Men is a very interesting play about an unfortunate young man, who was convicted of killing his dad. ... (The el is a train) I believe Twelve Angry Men situation could happen in the real life, and I am almost certain it has already happened, however I do not know if the jury in the real life had someone as smart and intelligent as #8. ...
The movie "Twelve Angry Men" is a clear example of the consensus value found in the Social Change Model of Leadership. In the movie, twelve men of various backgrounds and preconceptions entered a jury room to decide the fate of a young man accused of murdering his father. ... One by one, the men reveal the motivating factors behind their decision to vote guilty. ... At the conclusion of the movie, the men were able to reach a consensus. ... No one could deny the "possibility" of twelve civil, self-conscious, men to work through their controversy kindly, in congruence with their beliefs, and a ...
"Twelve Angry Men" was written as a tele-play in 1954 by Reginald Rose. This play in time was made into a movie of black and white, and the in color some years after that. The better of the two which was in black and white was created in 1957; directed by Sydney Lumet. The colored version was made i...
"After reading Twelve Angry Men we feel confident in the American legal system." ... Reginald Rose questions her confidence in the American legal system in her play Twelve Angry Men, who have the task of determining a sixteen-year-old boy's fate as an innocent or a murderer. ... All twelve jurors have been brought together to make a decision. ...
The film Twelve Angry Men is an excellent tool to use to elaborate the original play because it provides an alternate visualization about the storyline, and it allows a different perspective from the director's viewpoint. ... The film Twelve Angry Men clears up any confusion that might have been caused by the play and gives a different perspective about the characters and the situations they face. ...
Twelve Angry Men The film Twelve Angry Men, staring Henry Fonda, was based on a jury deciding if an 18-year-old boy was guilty of murdering his own father. The twelve men dispute for hours in a hot jury room, sweating from the frustration of all the debating. ... As an excellent critical thinker and leader he convinces eleven men to change their minds. ... As members would change their minds he would be angry towards them. ... At this point all the men stood up from their chairs, walked away and put their backs towards him. ...
All of the jurors do so in "Twelve Angry Men.... This is not the case in "Twelve Angry Men.... Juror Two shows his personality in "Twelve Angry Men.... The jurors in "Twelve Angry Men" especially do so. ... Every one of the jurors in "Twelve Angry Men" does so....
After viewing the film "Twelve Angry Men" I noticed that the characters were however using these exact methods that the textbook emphasized on. ... He tries to force his emotions on the other men in order to change their feelings of the boy. ... They thought this until one of the men voted not guilty. ... Throughout Twelve Angry Men all the characters used different persuasive tactics to finally come to a verdict of guilty or not guilty. ...
Twelve Angry Men In the play "Twelve Anger Men" there is a lot of times where the jurors get angry. ... Until the men do not take being in the jury seriously. Number eight get mad in Act to when number three and twelve play a game of tic-tac-toe. ... We know that the he is angry because the word is the bracket say "angry". Number twelve seems to get mad in act one because he doesn't want to be on the jury he just want the jury to convict the boy of murder so they can all go home. ...
