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
28 comments:
well i will be the first one to say anything, but persuasive is almost used for anything that you need to convenice someone alse or group to join your side or see your reasoning. Prejuduce has effected humans decision for years and years the juror#3 i think was the most perjuduce he was effected from his past also. We see perjuduce everyday in our life it was defintaly in this movie. This waas a good and informing movie over all. :)
This movie was an excellent movie, I really liked it. This movie showed the arguing and what really goes on in the jury room. The decision that the jurors made could lead to the life or death of the kid and should be thought about for a good amount of time and not something that would be rushed. Juror 3 was the most prejuduce and is very common but needs to be kept out of a situation like this. The defendant was first assumed guilty by all the jurors which i think was wrong because they had not discussed the reasons yet and he is innocent until proven guilty. The women who supposevly saw the boy killing his father was the most important evidence but it was not enough and proven a very unlikley situation that she could see 60ft through a train in the middle of the night without glasses. The art of persuasion is a very valuable and powerful skill and needed in cases like this to siwtch the way people think. This shouldn't have been a hung jury because if they re-did the case with different people they probaly wouldn't have been smart enough to see the mistakes in the prosecution witnesses and the boy would probaly have been found guilty and killed. Juror 10 had proven the witnesses wrong in the very unlikly cases that they said they witnessed. Juror 10 also prooved that the knife may not have come from the boy.
I think juror 3 was the most prejudice one because he did not consider the evidence shown like the knife and the glasses. In surprised he even made jury selection because he was as biased as a man could be. This should not have been a hung jury because this is a very important and serious matter. But if it was, at least juror 3 wouldn't be there. Juror 3 and the old man were very smart for remembering the glasses marks, buying a similar knife, and for timing the time a average limping man would take to get to the door. But, it was a undoubtable fact that when the boy did not remember the movies he saw, this benefited the prosecution. I think that the boy is not guilty because there are tons of evidence that benefit the defendant and because the prosecution did not do that good of a job based on what we heard about the case.
I think juror 3 was the most prejudice one because he did not consider the evidence shown like the knife and the glasses. I'm surprised he even made jury selection because he was as biased as a man could be. This should not have been a hung jury because this is a very important and serious matter. But if it was, at least juror 3 wouldn't be there. Juror 8 and the old man were very smart for remembering the glasses marks, buying a similar knife, and for timing the time a average limping man would take to get to the door. But, it was an undoubtable fact that when the boy did not remember the movies he saw, this benefited the prosecution. I think that the boy is not guilty because there are tons of evidence that benefit the defendant and because the prosecution did not do that good of a job based on what we heard about the case.
This movie was a very interesting movie! I surprisingly enjoyed it. When I heard that the boy was not guilty, it shocked me because in the beginning of the Movie, it was 11 to 1. Everybody thought the boy was guilty, but he ended up being not guilty; well that’s the power of persuasion for you. In my honest perspective, I saw the boy as guilty and not guilty. I would have agreed with the jury if they were a hung jury since both sides of the case had a strong, reasonable, argument. I’d have to say the most persuasive piece of evidence for the Prosecution (possibly since we didn’t see the trial) would be the women who supposedly witnessed the murder through her bedroom window, as Evan said. But, this evidence was not strong enough. Why? Because the jury members who thought the boy was not guilty brought up a good point. They stated the women possibly wore glasses because of the indentations on her nose. It would be an unlikely chance she can witness the killing without her glasses. It’s a possibility, because I can see without my glasses, but not if it’s too far away. Another piece of evidence that was crucial to the jurors who believed he was not guilty would be the man who saw the boy running down the stairs. This wouldn’t be possible for a man who once had a stroke who was quite old. I mean, the train thing was a good point, which Is another way Juror #8 was able to convince the other jurors that the boy was not guilty. I think the movie shows that you can’t just sit and room and say “okay, the person’s guilty. Death penalty, now.” No, you can’t do that. It takes persuasion to help change what you think so that you see eye-to-eye with the people around you and to change your perspective and view of something; which is how the movie used the art of persuasion. If it weren’t for persuasion, I don’t it would have been possible for the boy to come out not guilty.
Well like the other comments so far I believe that jurior 3 is by far led with the most prejudice. I don't believe it should have been a hung jury, yeah it'll been easier for some of the juriors. But it's best to discuss and talk it out till all can agreeably reach a verdict. To me the most persuasive pieces of evidence in favor of the defense would be the switch blade jurior 8 had, which he bought at pawnshop for 6 dollors showing it could really be lost from his pocket. And how the movie teaches of the art of persuasion is to me that with fast and reasonably thinking you can over come the most stubborn & clever minds.
The main characters who were prejudice were juror number ten, who was strongly against the poor saying "Their all alike" and juror number three who had a prejudice against kids. They were influenced by their prejudices and kept saying guilty until the end. Juror number three held his decision until he snapped. When it comes to reverse discrimination not many jurors had that. In a way juror eight was against the majority, but not in a prejudice way. The jury should not have been a hung jury because everybody was persuaded in the end and many were fueled by prejudice. The defense in the court case had very little compelling evidence, but most things came out in the jury room. The best evidence for the prosecution was the eye witness, but in the jury room doubt started to rise about the witness. The movie teaches that the art of persuasion is a powerful tool that can even destroy prejudice.
I liked the movie. I think that Juror #3 was the most prejudice. Even though the other jurors showed him proof, facts, and evidence he still don't agree with them. I think they should not have been a hung-jury. If it were a hung jury, the judge probably would have to make the decision about the fate of the boy. What if the Judge said he was guilty and sent him to the eletric chair? The movie also teaches people to also not always beleive yourself, such as at the end of the movie how they made Juror #3 change his mind.
I liked the movie. I think that Juror #3 was the most prejudice. Even though the other jurors showed him proof, facts, and evidence he still don't agree with them. I think they should not have been a hung-jury. If it were a hung jury, the judge probably would have to make the decision about the fate of the boy. What if the Judge said he was guilty and sent him to the eletric chair? The movie also teaches people to also not always beleive yourself, such as at the end of the movie how they made Juror #3 change his mind.
I thought that 12 Angry Men was a fantastic movie. It let us see what goes on in a jury. And that there are many different ways to be persuasive. Also just because someone says something doesn't mean that it is true. Also when it comes to being a juror it is very important that they don't walk in the court room and already have an opinion. It is important that jurors always think things through and that they always have a good reason for voting guilty or not guilty. Especially when they are dealing with life and death like in 12 Angry Men. But obviously even if they aren't going to die they are still going to jail and it wouldn't be fair if they went and they din't commit the crime. But also it wouldn't be good if they did commit the crime and they din't go to jail.
I really liked this movie! It wasn't boring, even though the majority of it takes place in the jury deliberation room. I was very surprised because in the beginning, it was 11 to twelve, but in the end, the boy was not guilty. I very much agree with Malak. I think that Juror #3 was driven by prejudice the most, because his reasons were not very reasonable. I don't think this trial should have been a hung jury, or else the boy could have been tried again and found guilty, or he could have been set free and people would fear him. But, I guess it would be a bit hard to reach a fair decision since both sides had strong evidence. I think the movie taught us that we can't just give the death penalty to a person just so that you could go home quickly. It also showed us a good example of persuasion and the use of strong, clear evidence by showing Juror #8 persuade the other jurors that the boy might be not guilty. Again, I really enjoyed the movie! Thank you, Mr. Veliz!
Yes, I agree with Sarah! Juror #3 definitely was led by prejudice the most, she has a good point
I think that jurror three used prejudice, against kids. Jurror eight didn't use prejudice from what I saw. I think it was odd that they focused on one piece of evidence, sorta like Evan said. Again, as Evan said, I to think that persuasion is important in a jury room, and in the case overall. I believe it should have been a hung jury because; I think some of the jurrors had doubt, maybe not a lot of doubt, but just a little doubt. I think the best evidence for the procecution was the woman "seeing" the boy kill his father the train, from 60ft away, which is not enough to convict a person guilty.
To start I loved the movie and how it was different than most court movies that take place in an actual courtroom. I agree with Thomas that juror 10 was very prejudice. He made a few statements that were offensive to the part of town the defendant lived. Juror 3 was also prejudice towards kids in the movie because of his past experiences. I am happy that the defendant was not guilty but i personally think that they should have been a hung jury. The information that was in favor of the prosecution would not have been questioned without juror number eight. I think that he literally made the defense case for them. I think the knife that juror number 8 found is the most important piece because it was the first real piece of reasonable doubt against the prosecution. I thought he was voting not guilty out of pity at the very begining. I also agree with Caleb in the fact that juries must make smart decisions. If the jury had said guilty at the begining then the boy would have been dead. That is why being on a jury must be hard you have to think of all the options like a puzzle.
I think Juror number three was definitley prejudice. He started out taking his own experience with his son into account and wasn't looking at the real facts. At the end of the movie everyone came to realize that. Juror number ten, like number three looses his temper a lot and at the beginning won't stand for his opinion to be turned away and sticks with it for a long time. I think this shouldn't have been a hung trial because of all the evidence they had and that they found out. It was clear that the people who were voting guilty most of the time didn't have many good reasons, except for juror #4, which would give an unfair outcome and cause someone to be killed for no good reason. I don't think juror #4 wasn't excersising reverse discrimination because in my opinion he was the fairest one there.
There were so many good reasons that I would have never thought of like the way you held the knife, the amount of seconds it would take for an older man to get across a long hallway, and the indentions on the witness' face. The movie remembering was hard to believe in my opinion. Persuasion is a really helpful tool when being a juror. It could save someones life or do the exact opposite. You need to know how to persuade and be careful on how you use it. Without persuasion there is know piont in deliberating.
I think that juror number 12 was the most prejudiced by far, because he always yelled that it was obvious he was guilty, and that people who grow up in the slums are criminals, yet he never referred to a single piece of evidence.
This movie was a very good movie. It showed how Jurors deliberate, and decide whether the defendant is found guilty, or not guilty. I think that it is good that juror #8 voted not guilty because if he hadn't then he would have been found guilty. Juror #8 has really great facts why the defendant is not guilty; it convinced me and all the other jurors in the room, except juror #3 because he was prejudice. Juror #3 had experienced something bad with his son, so he thinks that any teenager is bad news. I believe that juror #3 would probably want to be the person who turns on the electric chair. Juror #12 had the biggest peer pressure, like one of the jurors put it, “he was bouncing back and forth like a tennis ball.” When juror #8 was proving his point why the son is not guilty he was being will calm about it, while juror #3 was yelling. If I was one of the jurors I would have voted not guilty, because all the facts that the old man, and Juror #8 presented it was without a doubt to me not questionable. The old lady was definitely not telling the truth because there’s no way she could have seen the boy in the other house because she said she was rolling and turning around in her bed, and seen the boy stab is father. That is not true because first of all you can't role around in your bed with glasses, and you can't see that far away without your glasses. I know that for sure because I have glasses.
Well although personally I thought he was almost for sure guilty I had some doubt definitely when the whole buissness about the knife came up. That made me think that I could either go with what our Judicial system says and let a guilty man go free or I could continue to try and convict this man. So I guess in a court room when it seems more on the guilty side you really have to ask yourself and maybey other jurors that question. Lastly the whole problem with this movie is that you never see the actual trial so is it really fair to even put yourself in the shoes of one of those jurors when they've heard six days worth of arguing and all you've heard is loaded bias opinions? But really the movie is not about that. Its about what transpires and what happens in that deliberation room and how it is possible to flip a 11-1 vote to the other side.
Many characters based their decisions on prejudice. Actually, some of the jurors don’t have reasoning. They are going with the majority. Juror #8 uses reverse discrimination by using other factors that were not in the trial to drive them to the “not guilty” side. I agree with his reasoning because all the facts that were in the trial might have been “bent” in a way. For example Juror #9, who said that she has the same marks on the side of her nose as another juror, meant that she had glasses so therefore, she didn’t see too great. They didn’t mention that in the trial. In my opinion, this trial should have not been a hung jury because this boy didn’t deserve to die. There are many other factors that were considered, as Juror #8 stated. The most persuasive pieces of evidence for the prosecution said that the lady looked out of her window and saw the boy stab his father. The most persuasive evidence from the defense is when they said he was at the movies that night. The movie teaches the art of persuasion because 11 out of the 12 Jurors, at the beginning of the movie voted “guilty,” but Juror #8 persuaded every single one of them to vote “not guilty” by having strong reasoning.
Yes Marley, I agree with you about how many characters were prejudice.
I really liked this movie a lot. It was very interesting and there was a lot of back and forth scenes between people, but that was expected. The most prejudice was defiantly Juror #3. He was quick on his decisions without taking time to think about what he had in mind and he always had to judge every comment that was said by anyone in the room. To me the trial should have been a hung jury because both sides(siding with guilty or non-guilty) had an answer or an argument for every time someone would say something they were against. They had so many back and forth moments between the people that they should've just left it as a hung jury but they didn't seem like they wanted to do that. Both sides(guilty and non guilty) had very good persuasive arguments in the jury room, but it seemed like no matter what the people who sided with guilty said the non guilty people would always have a come back or another argument set for them. Liked we talked about in class, the defense team and the prosecution team should have made their cases so good, that the jury shouldn't have a doubt in their mind that the defendant was guilty or non guilty, depending on what side you were fighting for. In this jury there was defiantly a lot of doubt going through every one of those jury members. But the arguments in this jury were so good that I couldn't choose any side. Of course I thought guilty at first but then the people, well person at the time, had a very good reasoning for choosing non guilty that, if I was in that jury i would've asked for it to be a hung jury. This movie taught so much about the art of persuasion, that it made it interesting to watch. To me the movie taught that even if your standing alone, you can change a room full of stubborn men's minds even when they want to believe something else. That one little persuasion can change many people's minds. It really was a wonderful movie!
I agree with Rebekah, about that #3 is a prejudice because he doesn't even think about what he is saying. I think the trial should have found the defandent not guilty like I said earlier in my blog.
The movie twelve angry men was very interesting to me. It showed what realy happens in a jury deliberation room. some of the people just jumped right to saying the person was guilty without looking at any of the evidence or some of them went with what everybody else said. only one person actually put himself in the kids position and thought about the facts when all the other people had lots of bais toward the situation. juror egieght was the only one who first voted for not guilty. they should have thought it out more before they said they were a hung jury because what they say is life or death for the kid. in the end juror egeight pionted all the facts that the prosicution missed and put a reason of doubt in everybodys mind and they found the boy not guilty.
I believe there was predjudice throughout the whole movie. Almost all of the jurors thought the boy was guilty just from the beginning because he had had a record for doing bad things before. As Ryan said juror three did refer to his past which is ok to do as long as you aren't letting it get into the way of your decisions. Juror eigth does in a way use reverse discriminitation to get the others to join his cause but I believe he was completely fair and had very good views and ideas. I admire the fact that he didn't give in to peer pressure and vote guilty just because everyone else was. Instead he stood by his opinion and searched deep into the case and brought out more and more evidence that made the boy look less and less guilty.This jury should not have been hung because I feel everyone was confident with their decision except the last juror to give in. I believe that inside he really and truly did believe the boy was not guilty but he had personal experiences that made him want the boy to be guilty and die. I believe that the facts brought up about the old man walking to the door and the lady having glasses worked in the favor for those defending the boy. The fact that the prosecution had a witness see the murder works in the favor until the jurors discover that the lady wore glasses. This movie teaches us that persuasion is like a seed, you just have to persuade one person and they persuade more. Persuasion has to be used in a way that you appeal to ones emotions, and in a way where you aren't using predjudice. I also agree with the other comments.
I believe that although juror number eight was the in favor of the defendant certain pieces of evidence he presented shouldn't have been found out by him but by the defense team. I also think that almost every character was prejudice in one way or the other but I mean even though "justice is blind" I think every person had brought into the dileberation room some self thoughts that were clouding the facts. I think for this reason the main point of this movie is the power if persuading. For example at the beginning the vote was 11 to 1 guilty but juror number eight and his art of persuasion is what turned the tides in the end.
i think about you sometimes
i like your body mr veliz
Post a Comment