12 Angry Men Essay

Twelve Angry Men is a very interesting film. As the evidence is brought up to question by the jurors themselves. The complexity of this case grew as the films went on. Then came the hard part, making the decision, guilty or not guilty. Especially when you have jurors that are over shadowed by prejudice that influence their decision. It is only when prejudice is set aside that the jurors’ are able to make a more logical decision on the case. As the movie continues, all twelve jurors slowly arrive in the room. They take a seat according to their jury numbers and begin to discuss the case.

The foreman then reviews the case. You learn that the man is accused of killing his father and all jurors must vote guilty or not guilty for there to be a verdict. As the movie continues, all twelve jurors slowly arrive in the room. They take a seat according to their jury numbers and begin to discuss the case. The foreman then reviews the case. You learn that the man is accused of killing his father and all jurors must vote guilty or not guilty for there to be a verdict. After going over a few facts of the claim, the foreman gives the men a choice. The choice was to discuss the case more into depth or vote on the spot.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Everyone agrees to vote on the verdict right then and there. The foreman instructs the men who are choosing guilty to raise their hands and begins counting off who was voting what. Seven or eight hands go up instantly. A few more hands rise up more slowly. The foreman continues to counts. He then asks who votes not guilty. Only one jury member raises his hand, number eight. At first, Juror 3 appears to be a successful businessman who owns a messenger service. Yet as time goes on, one may see him as a sour and unhappy man. He wants to base the case solely on the evidence presented at the trial.

Throughout the meeting in the jury room, Juror 3 disregards all other evidence brought up by Juror 8 and the others. He says that the evidence revealed may not be accurate or true. Therefore, it should not be taken into consideration. As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate and seems to be somehow personally involved with the case. At one point, he tells the other jurors about an argument between him and his son. Juror 3 and his son had an argument which made his son run away. When his son returned to apologize, Juror 3 hit him for leaving the first time thus leading him to run away once more.

He has not seen his son in two years and this has left him somewhat bitter inside. His anger toward his supposed ungrateful son is projected toward the young man on trial. Juror 3 has no concern for the life of the defendant. He makes it clear that he would have been an executioner and would have pulled the switch on the boy himself. His personal troubles have imposed on his ability to come to a verdict. In the movie, he exemplifies how hidden anger and a resentful attitude can obscure the truth It is very obvious that most of the battle that juror #8 fought was the prejudices of the other jurors.

Instead of a verdict being based on the facts and logic everyone just went with majority rule and did not think of the consequences of what might happen to the boy, which was life in prison or death. These issues are handled and challenged by Juror #8, instead of going along with the crowd and accepting the evidence as it was presented, he challenged everything. Since the boy was to be executed if found guilty his life was now in the hands of the jury and juror #8 reasoned that the least they could do was to talk about the case.

At that moment, tempers start rising and the jurors quickly start to jump down juror number eight’s throat. Jurors number eight calmly responses to all the criticism by saying he just does not know what to believe and refuses to send a young man to death if he is not one hundred percent sure he did not commit the crime. He then explains that he is not there to try and change their mind but to just talk for a while and put everything on the table. Juror number ten ignorantly argues back saying how he does not believe him at all. Also adding in that all of “them” are born liars

x

Hi!
I'm Ruth!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out