During deliberation there are multiple occasions where there are similarities between the story and the movie. One occasion, how the juror members are sitting around the table in order.
At stake is the fate of a year-old boy who is on trial for the murder of his father. As the discussion unfolds, many difficulties emerge among the 12 jurors whose various experiences and backgrounds as well as their varied life narratives fuel tension. It is not irrelevant either, that Rose sets the play in the heady period of the s — a period of post-war migration and racial segregation in the United States.
Typically, the jurors, who are all white males of around middle age, are not representative of the broader community, and many are hostile towards the young boy.
Rose implies that the defendant comes from a minority ethnic group, perhaps black or Hispanic and because of his dysfunctional socio-economic background, many believe that he is capable of murder. The critical role of the 8th juror Rose characterises the 8th juror as a spokesperson for justice who foregrounds the concept of reasonable doubt.
This seemingly honest and simply request fuels a great deal of dramatic tension among the jurors, many of whom are predisposed to conflicting views. The 8th juror believes that the boy has the right to a fair trial, even though he comes from a deprived and possibly violent background.
He shows a more forgiving, compassionate and sympathetic attitude to the young boy.
He points out that the boy has had a miserable life and does not automatically dismiss the boy or become angry towards him just because of his poverty-stricken circumstances and his dysfunctional family.
In other words, the jurors should presume that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The 8th juror reminds the jurors that the onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt — not the defendant. Specifically, the 8th juror points out that the old man and woman assumed it was the boy; the old man could not have heard the boy yell over the sound of the elevated train or hurried to his front door in 15 seconds because of his injured leg.
Think about the number system to identify the jurors. In a sense this depersonalises the jury members to show that their personalities should not play a factor.
Ironically, the 8th juror seems to be the only one who, at first, best abides by this nameless system and focuses on the boy.
The 6th juror who is a house painter has had experience of apartments that overlook an el line and can testify to the noise. This is a quiet, frightened, insignificant old man who has been nothing all his life, who has never had recognition….
He concludes that the old man manipulated the evidence because he sought attention. Likewise, the woman in the apartment opposite testifies to the fact that she looked through the window of the EL train and saw the boy stabbing his father.
However, it becomes evident that the woman has deep indent marks on her nose from her eyeglasses. It is most likely, then, that she would have had blurred vision, and possibly made a mistake.
Evidently, the woman tried to make herself look young and attractive because she was on show during the trial. Also the prosecution team deliberately asked her to remove the eyeglasses so as not to draw attention to her poor eyesight.
The 8th juror also states that just because the boy cannot remember the details of the movie does not automatically disprove his alibi or his guilt. He may be emotionally upset.
Evidently, as Rose points out, the personalities of those who present the evidence play a large role. The eye-witnesses manipulate and distort the facts to confirm their personal views.
The role of prejudice Owing to preconceived biases, jurors are too quick to arrive at hasty conclusions and automatically accept the evidence that is presented before them. The 3rd and 10th jurors are typical of those who discriminate against the boy from the start of the trial by virtue of his poverty-stricken background and dysfunctional upbringing.
The Guard unlocks the door at the end suggesting the release of their bigoted ideas.
Save us a lot of time and money. The most bigoted jurors 3rd and 10th are the last to concede defeat because of their deeply held convictions.
Legal responsibilities Many jurors misunderstand or fail to apply their legal responsibilities. The game of tic tac toe played by jurors 3rd and 12 reflects a disrespectful attitude toward their legal responsibilities.
The 12th juror also changes his votes. There is an obvious discrepancy between the articulate nature of the prosecution team and the inefficiency of the defence team. I was very impressed. Contrastingly, the defence counsel appears disinterested in their legal responsibilities.
He let too many things go. Similarly other jurors also have personal commitments and experiences that make them more likely to react to the evidence in different ways and many discount the seriousness of their legal responsibilities.There are also several differences during deliberation in the short story and the movie version of 12 Angry Men.
There were a lot of arguments and confrontations among the jurors during deliberation and the man that broke it up and calmed everyone down was the foreman.
ESSAY SAMPLE written strictly according to your requirements. A. 12 Angry Men Essay. A. Pages:7 Words This is just a sample. is a gripping and an engrossing examination of 12 jurors who are deciding the fate of a young Puerto Rican boy in a murder trial.
the old man also initially confirmed with the group but switched when the vote was private and finally the baseball fan very blatantly went. The dynamics of group decision-making is the central focus in the film 12 Angry Men.
This is one such movie which shows how group dynamics can actually lead to success or failures. 12 Angry Men is a classic movie which was released in In the movie 12 men are put in one single room [ ].
% FREE Papers on 12 angry men essay. Sample topics, paragraph introduction help, research & more. Class , high school & college. -. Juror# 8: The architect is a very patient and gentle man with a high conscience of what is right and wrong. He feels a high responsibility on how his bad judgment could send an innocent man to die.
The old man gave evidence that he heard the boy say “I’ll kill you” from his apartment below and that he saw the boy running from the down the stairs from the apartment after rising from his bedroom.