From http://plays.about.com/od/plays/a/twelveangry.htm
At the beginning of Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the jury has just finished listening to six days of trial proceedings. A nineteen-year old man is on trial for the murder of his father. The defendant has a criminal record (and a lot of circumstantial evidence piled against him). The defendant, if found guilty, would receive a mandatory death penalty.Click here for a list and description of the 12 jurors.
The jury is sent to a hot, crowded room to deliberate. Before any formal discussion, they cast a vote. Eleven of the jurors vote “guilty.” Only one juror votes “not guilty.” That juror, who is known in the script as Juror #8 is the protagonist of the play. As the tempers flare and the arguments begin, the audience learns about each member of the jury. And slowly but surely, Juror #8 guides the others toward a verdict of “Not Guilty.”
- Which characters base their decisions on prejudice?
- Does Juror #8, or any other character, exercise “reverse discrimination”?
- Should this trial have been a hung jury? Why / why not?
- What are the most persuasive pieces of evidence in favor of the defense? Or the prosecution?
- What does the movie teach about the art of persuasion?
The commenting will end at the end of Friday, March 9.
Posts
18 comments:
I think that Jurors #3 and #10 were the most racist, and Juror #10 seemed very biased in his speech about "those people" until he realized his own wrong. He was very prejudiced to lower-class citizens of the slums, and came across as bitter and self-righteous. He only wanted to convict the boy because he thought that all people living in the slums were dangers to society. Juror #3 also based his decision on prejudice, by involving his feelings about his son in his opinion. I think Juror #5 may have practiced reverse discrimination, since he grew up in the slums and did not want to send someone like him when he was younger to the electric chair. In my opinion, this trial should not have been a hung jury because this group picked up on things that others probably could not. This would most likely result in an innocent man being killed. The defense's strongest point is his alibi of going to the movies. It gives a reason to why he could have not been responsible. The prosecution's strongest point was the woman across the street. She was eventually disproved, but before this, everyone regarded her as the clincher to why the boy was guilty. After all, "she saw him do it." I think that this movie teaches that to be persuasive, you have to be able to convince people that what you believe is right. It also brings to light the fact that we can't always trust things people say they did, because they could be unintentionally lying. However, near the end, I think the jurors who voted 'not guilty' convinced themselves that they saw the marks on the woman's nose, when they were just taking the old man's word for it. I thought this movie was an excellent representation of how and why people believe the things that they do.
I agree with Kathryn... Juror #3 clearly represented the antagonist, to the point it seemed like, "There's no way a man would do that!" But what this movie does an excellent job of doing is proving...yes. Yes they will. Some people are so natural at convincing themselves of lies everything else seems totally ridiculous. I thought the juror who wore the glasses was very good and fair. He had his reasons for voting "guilty", but he understood and listened to what Juror #8 said, until he finally agreed. The wonderful thing about a jury is that the fate of one person does not fall into one person's hands. It depends on 12 people, each with different views, and things to contribute. Reasonable doubt was something heavily focused on throughout this film. If you can't say, "Look here is the evidence, a video with the kid murdering his father, and 2 other witnesses who claimed they too saw this, and can support that claim," then you can't say guilty. A lot of times it can be frustrating, but its better that way, than to vote every man innocent. Juror #8 wasn't sly and cunning. He was honest and made people see the truth. THAT is persuasion, not tricks and skill. Persuasion is letting people see your side by your actions and words, not force. Of course, the man who grew up in the slums would be an example of reverse discrimination. It would be like a man from your town being sentenced to death--it affects you in a way nothing else can. I was glad though, that he listened to both sides of the case, though he was biased. The old man who yelled about "those people from the slums" was a HUGE example of the bigotry and disgusting racism that does exist. We meet one person and think every one of their race is like that. It is nearly impossible to avoid personal thoughts and feelings in a case where a man's life rests in your hands. A hung jury would be a terrible decision. What if there wasn't anyone to say "Not guilty"? What if the fate of that 19 year old boy was decided in the matter of a minute? I loved this movie and how we realized, there is a reason for every cruel action or belief that takes place in the mind.
I agree with Kathryn... Juror #3 clearly represented the antagonist, to the point it seemed like, "There's no way a man would do that!" But what this movie does an excellent job of doing is proving...yes. Yes they will. Some people are so natural at convincing themselves of lies everything else seems totally ridiculous. I thought the juror who wore the glasses was very good and fair. He had his reasons for voting "guilty", but he understood and listened to what Juror #8 said, until he finally agreed. The wonderful thing about a jury is that the fate of one person does not fall into one person's hands. It depends on 12 people, each with different views, and things to contribute. Reasonable doubt was something heavily focused on throughout this film. If you can't say, "Look here is the evidence, a video with the kid murdering his father, and 2 other witnesses who claimed they too saw this, and can support that claim," then you can't say guilty. A lot of times it can be frustrating, but its better that way, than to vote every man innocent. Juror #8 wasn't sly and cunning. He was honest and made people see the truth. THAT is persuasion, not tricks and skill. Persuasion is letting people see your side by your actions and words, not force. Of course, the man who grew up in the slums would be an example of reverse discrimination. It would be like a man from your town being sentenced to death--it affects you in a way nothing else can. I was glad though, that he listened to both sides of the case, though he was biased. The old man who yelled about "those people from the slums" was a HUGE example of the bigotry and disgusting racism that does exist. We meet one person and think every one of their race is like that. It is nearly impossible to avoid personal thoughts and feelings in a case where a man's life rests in your hands. A hung jury would be a terrible decision. What if there wasn't anyone to say "Not guilty"? What if the fate of that 19 year old boy was decided in the matter of a minute? I loved this movie and how we realized, there is a reason for every cruel action or belief that takes place in the mind.
Wait...I didn't mean to publish that comment twice....
Major Double Post XD
Hello! After seeing this movie, I realized two things about people in a jury room: a lot of them are biast, and the others who actually pay attention to the facts pick up on things that no one else would. I agree with Kathryn and Robin. Juror #3 seemed to express many of his own thoughts and feelings from his life in this case. I think this is why he was the last one of the 12 jurors to say the defendent was guilty. I also feel that juror #8 was the only one there who didn't totally freak out and start yelling. He was calm, talked it out over and over until the facts were set straight. But of course not without the other jurors who noticed some very little deatails that I would've never noticed if I had been working on this acse. For example, when the old guy noticed the marks on that lady's nose from glasses, and that she probably didn't see the scene clearly. Although there were many facts that could have suppoprted the guilty side, it was the deatails that proved he was not guilty. As they say, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The jurors in the beginning had some solid facts on how he could be guilty, but near the end, they seemed to convince themselves that he was innocent based on the details. Juror #3 was also biast because he wanted the boy to die. He felt that children were evil and decieving all becuase of his own son. Juror #10 just kinda thought that all people who lived in the so called, "slums" were dangerous to the society. He didn't care much about facts. I was just glad that in the end, everyone voted for not guilty. My own personal thoughts from the beginning was that the defendent was innocent. But I think this movie was intense and very interesting. This is a great example of how people express their feelings and belifs.
In my opinion, Juror #3 and Juror #10 were the prejudices, because Juror #3 was basing his decision if the boy was guilty or innocent on his relationship with his son, which was being biased and that is not fair because it is not right for the nineteen year old to have to be killed, because Juror #3 was biased about his decision. Also Juror #10 is prejudice, because he was against the nineteen year olds race. Juror #8 practiced reverse discrimination, because he was actually trying to figure out what really happened before he voted guilty and also, because he knew where the boy came from and what kind of life he was living. I think that this case should not be a hung jury, because if a other jurors came mostly likely they would not be able to come up with all the facts that this jury did and mostly like if it was a hung jury, all the other jurors would vote guilty, because they didn't take their time to learn more about the boy. So I think it was right for the trial to have the boy proved innocent. The most persuasive point of the defense was that the boy went to the movies and that he couldn't have been home to kill his father. The prosecution's most persuasive point was the old lady actually seeing the boy kill his father, but that wasn't true because how could she see all the way across the street without wearing her glasses. She just wanted to get attention. This movie was a really good movie it taught everybody that you can't always trust what people say, because they just want the boy gone. Also, that it is hard for the Jurors to not involve their personal lives into the case.
I agree with Kathryn. I think that juror #7 just wanted to go to his baseball game and didn't care what happened. I think that could have or or not have had a hung jury. Juror #7 could have made it a hung jury. Juror #8 was great at represented his ideas for why he thought the boy was not guilty. I liked this movie a lot and I thought that the boy was innocent.
Pretty much everything has already been said and yeah.
I think that Juror #3 was basing his vote for guilty on his own prejuices, and that is wrong. That was wrong because he could have been partly responsible for a boys death, without even bothering to think over the facts. I think that #3 was just feeling sorry for himself and the fact that him and his son never spoke, and his feelings toward his son kind of influenced his vote. I also believe that Juror #10 was basing his vote on what some people of the slums turned out to be, and that he wasn't even giving the boy a chance because of what other people from where the boy came from made all of the people from the slums sound like criminals. Juror #5 practiced reverse discrimination because the slums is where he grew up and he didn't turn out a criminal, so he didn't think it was right to vote "guilty" at least without listening to the true facts. I don't think that this case should have been a hung jury. If it had been it would have most likely resulted in the boy being killed because this specific group of jurors had an older man in it of whom had more experience and picked up and realized many more things than a younger man would have. They also had Juror #8 who contributed a lot and saved the boy from deah after 5 minutes in the jury room. #8 really made the other jurors think about the evidence and what was a fact and what could have been the mistaken truth. The defense team mainly gave the jurors the fact that the boy was supposedly at the movies and lost his knife on the way back, so that it couldn't have been the boy who killed his father. However, the prosecution team gave the jurors eyewittnesses such as the old woman who supposedly saw the boy stab his father. But the jurors concluded that the woman wore glasses and it was nightime so she didn't have her glasses on, plus she had to be able to see across the road at night, and through a passing traincar's windows. Since you don't sleep with glasses on, they realized that that was pretty hard to believe, so they went to nonguilty. This movie showed how important it is to make decisions with an open heart and mind and not to just jump to conclusions based on you're prejuices and to really listen before you make decisions. Especially if you're decision is either going to kill or save someone.
I think that Juror #3 was basing his vote for guilty on his own prejuices, and that is wrong. That was wrong because he could have been partly responsible for a boys death, without even bothering to think over the facts. I think that #3 was just feeling sorry for himself and the fact that him and his son never spoke, and his feelings toward his son kind of influenced his vote. I also believe that Juror #10 was basing his vote on what some people of the slums turned out to be, and that he wasn't even giving the boy a chance because of what other people from where the boy came from made all of the people from the slums sound like criminals. Juror #5 practiced reverse discrimination because the slums is where he grew up and he didn't turn out a criminal, so he didn't think it was right to vote "guilty" at least without listening to the true facts. I don't think that this case should have been a hung jury. If it had been it would have most likely resulted in the boy being killed because this specific group of jurors had an older man in it of whom had more experience and picked up and realized many more things than a younger man would have. They also had Juror #8 who contributed a lot and saved the boy from deah after 5 minutes in the jury room. #8 really made the other jurors think about the evidence and what was a fact and what could have been the mistaken truth. The defense team mainly gave the jurors the fact that the boy was supposedly at the movies and lost his knife on the way back, so that it couldn't have been the boy who killed his father. However, the prosecution team gave the jurors eyewittnesses such as the old woman who supposedly saw the boy stab his father. But the jurors concluded that the woman wore glasses and it was nightime so she didn't have her glasses on, plus she had to be able to see across the road at night, and through a passing traincar's windows. Since you don't sleep with glasses on, they realized that that was pretty hard to believe, so they went to nonguilty. This movie showed how important it is to make decisions with an open heart and mind and not to just jump to conclusions based on you're prejuices and to really listen before you make decisions. Especially if you're decision is either going to kill or save someone.
i liked the 12 angry men. i agree with cathryn jouror's #3 #10 were very racist when they talked, i also think that juror #10 seemed very bias in his speeches about "those people" until realizing he was dead wrong. Juror 10 was very prejudiced to lower-class citizens of the slums coming across as bitter and self-righteous only wanting to convict the boy beacuse of his own opinion being that he thought that the slums were dangerous and harmful to society. watching this movie i saw things that certain jurors pointed out, such as juror #8, (my favorite character.)
Not to be rude, but you kind of copied my earlier comment...just saying...
At first i noticed that there was a lot of bias in the jury. Everyone wanted to vote guilty, and they began pressuring Juror #8 to just change his vote and get it over with. He stayed strong, and slowly proved his point about why the defendant couldnt be proven guilty. He never said that the defendant was innocent, but proved to everyone that there was reasonable doubt. Once it got down to the final few guilty votes, you could tell that most of them werent being reasonable. The guy with the glasses was being very logical, and changed his mind when it was proven to him. The rest of the people were just be biased, and basicly only changed their votes due to peer pressure. It made me really sad to think that in a life and death decision for a defendant, the jurors could be so biased. I guess that can happen in real life too.
I totally agree with Donovan, because their was a lot of bias from the Juorors in the beginning, except for Juror #8, because he was actually thinking for real. For example, all the jurors except juror #8 just voted guilty at the beginning, because they was tired of the heat and they wanted to get into air conditioner, because they wanted to get cool, but Juror #8 just didn't want to have the boy killed because he was tired of the heat, he didn't want to have the boy killed when he doesn't know if the boy is actually guilty. So he wanted to talk about the case to know if the boy was innocent or guilty. Which is the right thing to do, instead of making somebody lose their life. See if juror#8 wasn't there the boy would have been killed for no reason.
I believe that jurors 3 and 10 are the most prejudice. 10 claims to know everything about these kids that grew up in the slums, but how does he "know" that much. He goes off ranting about them until all the other jurors get ticked off and leave the table. Juror 3 doesn't have anything against the defendant, except for he is a child, and that his own son hasn't come to visit him in 2 years. He wants to take out his anger on the defendant if he knows it or not, he is not a bad man just angry that his own flesh and blood won't even bother calling home. Juror 8, I think, does not practice reverse discrimination because he gave everyone a chance to tell their opinion. I agree with Kathryn on that Juror 5 could have used reverse discrimination, I know I would stand up for someone who lived a similar life. They said in the movie that if it was a hung jury the boy would go to his death anyway. I think that the jury should not be hung because the Jurors were sharp, freakishly sharp. Like so sharp I cut myself from watching it. The most persuasive piece of evidence for me was that the old man saw the kid run out of the apartment. They later proved in the jury room that it would be impossible for an old man with a limp to get from the bedroom o the hallway in 15 seconds. The most persuasive piece of evidence for the defense was knife. Juror 8 revealed that the knife was not one of a kind and Juror 5 proved that a kid that lived in the slums should know how to use a switch blade and that it was the wrong way to hold it when they found the knife stabbed downward into the father's chest. Oh my God, hold on to your computer mouse I'm about to go crazy on you. This movie is one of the best I've seen it was attention grabbing, had a brilliant plot and script, the characters where well developed, and if you thought the defendant was guilty at first i bet you changed your mind around the 2nd or 3rd deep discussion. This movie is like a whole year of learning persuasion. Juror 8 was master at it. He led all the other Jurors into talking about the case and stayed on the topic like a buzzing fly and annoyed all the other Jurors into voting "not guilty". It teaches to keep calm, stay confident, and if you annoy the people just a little bit they will probably agree with you faster to make you stop talking about persuasion. By the way I think Juror 8 killed the father with his knife, chased the kid stole his knife, bribed the kid into not telling the judge about this and he will do what he could to persuaded the rest of the jury he was innocent. Hey, I'm just saying it could happen and it would be a pretty clever and shocking twist ending.
I think that most of the jurors in here were mainly biased and also about how if the jurors wouldve probably go over the main facts in the first place, they would have known that the boy wasnt guilty because of many of the most obvious things. And i think this should not be a hung trial because if the trial gets hung, then the next people to go will not be the same as the guy that voted not guilty first. Also juror #8 i believe, only voted not guilty just to attend the baseball game and also just to get out already, also the last juror to vote non guilty, voted non guilt because of his experiences with his son.
if you find this you are cool
Post a Comment