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
30 comments:
i think that the movie 12 angry men shows different ways of persuasion. i think the best persuasion was from juror number 8. he did not yell at people and he would say persuading stuff and would use evidence from the court case.
Juror # 10 was very prejudiced against the boy and was very clear about what he thought, juror # 3 had a bad relationship with his own son and he used that as a ery bad prejudice to this kid who might have killed his father. Juror # 8 does not use reverse discrimination and he mostly talks about the facts, none of the others bring reverse racism to their decisions. This trial ahouldn't have been a hung jury because this case is a very high level crime and it needed to be decided. The most persuasive pieces for the defense is the old man couldn't have walked that fast, and the woman probably needed eyeglasses. For the prosecution it was all that the old man saw the boy run dow the stairs, and he heard the boy yell "I'm gonna kill you!". The movie teaches that persuasin can be a powerful thing and can be used to decide a life or death situation.
I am testing this cool right?
•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?
Juror #3 brought the most prejuduce into the jury discussion, because he had a bad relationship with his son, which influenced his opinion with the young defendent. Juror #8 was the first to bring a 'not guilty' vote to the discusion, and he tried not to bring any discriminations: he simply tried to convince everyone that there was a reasonable doubt about this case. It's a very good thing that this jury settled with a not guilty vote, because otherwise a hung jury would allow a totally different jury to listen into another case, and there's a strong chance they would find this boy guilty. Some persuasive pieces of the jury's discussion include comparing the knifes and explaining the times between seeing the incident compared to the trains. I personally was convinced when they mentioned the witness with two marks on the side of her nose. 12 Angry Men was constantly using persuasion, and it taught me that if you keep persuading and don't give into any peer pressure it can pay off.
<3, sydney
I totally agree with Sydney! There was a lot of prejudice but this is what made the story. Juror #3 and #10 were very prejudice. I believe that when the old man was talking about the witness with the glasses was very true. Also juror #8 tested the walking hallway thing and there was noway that this stuff could be found true. So the accused murder had to be not guilty. In the end there was lots of persuasion but in life this is how things get solved.
Definatley, Sydney! We bring predjudice into almost every decision we make. In this movie (like sydney said) jourer #3 0r the "odd ball" brought a little to much personal matter to this subject affecting the whole situaton and his belief because of his bad relationship with his son. I thought the Boy was innocent but I believe we should of seen the case in court to make those decisions. I do not think it should of gone into a hunjury because the movie would be ruined and pointless if that happend but if it was for real than i dont think just the jury should make the decision of a young mans life and i am not really sure what a hunjury is (explain). I also agree with Carter: This movie does provide people that persuasion is a serious matter and effects our everyday lives in court or not. Persuasion is a great thing, it makes people think twice before making a right or wrong decision like this movie. Several and almost all of them used persuausion like the old man about the eye glasses and the witness and the main jourer #8(the good guy) used facts and evidence wich persuaded people to vote innocent. TBH: i thought this movie was gong to be boring but it was awesome!! :P
All of the jurors except #8 were prejudiced. At least Juror #8 didn't go right up and say "Guilty" in the first fiveminutes. He actuallly stopped himself and went through the facts, finding a reasonable doubt with no biast opinion. Everybody else had changed their vote at least once, were unsure, and some were easily convinced and included a lot of their oppinions, peer pressure, or past memories. I think the trial actually should have been a hung jury. From the time people started becoming unsure, anger was rising, and people were flip-flopping their votes back and forth, somebody should have taken stand and called a hung jury, no questions asked. That did happen a few times bt it wasn't foreful enough. With another case, the jurors could have reviewed the evidence again (possibly gaining more) and felt confident with their verdict. In addition the most persuasive pieces of evidence were evenly divided between guilty and not guilty. In other wors, there was the same amount of prosecution evidence as there was defense. What really bothered me though is that these jurors were SO easily persuaded by both sides! I mean come on Juror #7 (or whoever the guy was that kept changing his vote), dont be influenced by peer pressure or persuasion; MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION (that goes for the other ones too). To wrap it up, I think it should have been a hung jury with people more confidnet with THEMSELVES, not others. There should not have been 12 angry men.
I love what Carter said about having a hung jury and that persuasion is very powerful!!!!
I think that Juror #3 came in with the most prejudice, but all the others had prejudices too. All people have prejudices we as americans cannot get away from that. Juror #8 also had prejudices just not in the way that we think of prejudices, he just thought that everyone had some good in them and that the boy wasn't guilty. I don't think that this jury should have been a hung jury because when you you are in a jury the people are there to try to persuade you to join their side of guilty or not guilty. This movie is showing artful and creative ideas to be pursuasive, like keeping a calm voice or to yell and scream. THANX MR.VELIZ FOR SHOWING US THIS MOVIE I <3ED IT!
i think that all the jurors had prejudice, like what Mickey said about good and bad prejudice. juror 3 had bad prejudices because of the relationship he had with his son, saying "they're all the same"(referring to his son and the defendant. juror 8 had both good and bad prejudice. by seeing that all people have some good in them, no matter what they have done. also by thinking that just because the defendant was 18 he deserved to be found not guilty, like a second chance. everyone has prejudice, they cant help it. i dont think any one of the jurors used reverse discrimination, they were all just stating the facts and bringing their personal opinions into it. i think this movie was more of a battle between the jurors than for a kids life actually. i agree with carter that this should not have been a hung jury because of the seriousness of the case. i think the witnesses statement had a lot of power over the way the jurors chose their position. in this movie, they taught us that the art of persuasion is very important when you are trying to do something like convince people to be on your side, and it is very hard to master. this was a really good movie, Velizie, thanks for letting us watch it. the old guy was my fav.....
i think that juror number 3 was extremely prejudiced because of the bad relationship with his own son. juror number 10 was also prejudiced. i think what changed the mind of most of the jurors was the train and the switch blade that juror number 8 had. i think this should not be a hung jury because of how serious the crime was.
I think that everyone in the room except juror # 8 was prejuduced. Juror # 3 really got me. He was the worst because of the relationship he had with his son. Also I was suprised on how many times the Juror that kept on taking his glasses off. When you are being pressured always do or say what you think and not what others think. In this situation I don't think that it should have been a hung jury because if they did the other set of jurors may have a different perspective of the case. The boy would have had a very high chance of being guilty. The old man and juror # 8 were the most persuasive to me. People use persuasive language every day. Sometimes you don't evan know it. One thing that Juror # 8 pointed out was that America has a very special rule in the court. It is that you are not guilty untill proven guilty and all of the jurors must agree. I thought that was cool that he pointed that out.
Agree with Raynebow:( (Rayne:) I dont think Jourer #3 would really go that for as to want to kill the boy but he was very prejudice and was set for lettig his personal life and anger get into the way of his opinion and the Kids life.Also, Logan is right: this movie does show a lot of persuasion. Also, i also agree with Carter: The case was to high level to go into hungjury but anyways, i think the boy was innocent: i was convinced by the old man and jourer #8 that had little predjudice and evidential reasoning. <3 The Nerdy Dude With High Voice:) The Oldie Was A Boss:)
The two jurors who showed the most prejudice was #10 and #3. #10 had prejudices against people from the slums and other poor regions. He believed that inside they were all dirty rotten killers. #3 had prejudices against children because of his relationship with his child. #8 did have reverse prejudices because he never once showed prejudices against anything. this jury shouldn't of been a hung jury because this was a large case like Carter said. One problem with the defenses persuasion is that most of it is circumstantial. As for the Prosecution they had witnesses and profe which made their case very strong. the movie teaches that persuasion can be used to change peoples minds and is best used calmly.
i would say that the evidence supported the defendent because of the multiple flaws in the evidence that did not favor the defendent. two flaws are the train going by and the woman who looked into the other building without her glasses during the murder. the second switch blade is what i think changed or made them think they should vote not guilty.
I enjoyed 12 angry men. But honestly Juror #10 and 3 made me aggravated(and Micaela to.) Juror #10 was prejudice and brought racism into the matter causing the jurors to turn their back on him. Also Juror #3 was prejudice, yet I felt bad for him and how is son treated him. It would make since that Juror #3 was prejudice but he shouldn't have brought it out on the boy or the other jurors. I liked how juror #8 handled things, he didn't yell and used a calm voice to persuade them. He also didn't lose his temper like some of the other jurors did. In my opinion one of the most persuading evidence was the old man's testimony. It sounded convincing probably in the courtroom but when juror #8 explained it more it made some jurors realize that it wasn't possible for the man to get to the door that fast(much less the end of the hallway.)In this movie their was different types of persuasion. Some yelled to get their point across, few used soft voices and didn't yell, and some just totally lost it. I think juror #8 strategy was the best though! i agree wif Rayne the old guy was my fav(:
i think juror #10 and #3 were the most prejudiced. #3 was prejudiced had a bad relationship with his son. Jury #8 does not have reverse discrimination. He is a nice person and used only the facts to come to a conclusion. He also persuaded everyone. I think this should have been a hung jury because more than one set of judges should have decided his fate. The most persuasive piece of evidence to help the defense woman did not have glasses on when she thought she saw the killing happen through a passing train.
The movie taught that a person should stand by the facts to continue to bring people to their point of view.
i think there was not a whole lot of reverse discriminate inside the movie. i think that all of the jurors tried to just use good facts and lots of evidence.
i think this movie does not have a whole lot of reverse discrimination in it. i think the jurors stuck to facts and evidence.
i think this movie does not have a whole lot of reverse discrimination in it. i think the jurors stuck to facts and evidence.
i think all the jurors were prejudice but juror #8 was the least prejudice and remained mostly fair. But i think we can all agree juror #3 was most prejudice and even after discussing all the evidence that turned out in favor of the defendant (the duplicate knives, the old man not being able to be sure of anything, and the woman having to wear glasses) juror #8 still refused to believe he was guilty. And no one could really be sure whether he was guilty or innocent but i'm sure all the jurors had reasonable doubt and that is why it was so important for them to discuss the evidence. I think it didn't matter whether or not it was a hung jury or he was found innocent or guilty as long as the case was discussed because it seemed like juror #3 was holding alot of the other jurors under peer pressure by screaming and shouting an being very aggressive. This movie shows alot about persuasion. For example juror #8 wasn't necessarily trying to persuade anyone to choose not guilty but he wanted them all to have a good reason for choosing their opinions on this case, most of them were just going along with everyone else until they really analyzed the case and found there was room for reasonable doubt and jurors #3 and a few others wanted the boy to be guilty so they wanted to convince everyone else. But i think that them concluding he was not guilty was the best verdict.
After reading all the comments i think juror #10 and #3 were the most prejudiced. #3 was prejudiced.He had a bad father and son relationship.Which was probably one of the reasons why the boy should be guilty. Jury #8 does not have reverse discrimination. He is a wise man and used only the facts to come to a conclusion, rather than just talking about it for a few minutes and decide whether he was guilty or not. The votes were 11 to 1. Then jury #8 persuaded everybody. I do agree with what everybody said about how persuasive is very strong. I think this should have been a hung jury because more than one set of judges should have decided whether the boy was guilty or not. The most persuasive piece of evidence that jury eight pointed out that the woman did not have glasses on when she thought she saw the killing happen through a passing train. Another piece of evidence is when the old man with a bad leg or something couldn't have caught the boy running down the hallway. Due to his bad leg.
The movie taught us about how persuading is very powerful and how we should get our facts straight before we jump to conclusion. I say it was a great movie.
the movie was infact enjoyable and cool which weans that not only was it able to teach but entertane. the whole thought of the murder was compelling and fun which forced me to go deeper and understand it better. it seemed like they had been sitting there redoing the whole case disproving every fact that the prosecusion had shown every bit of evidence got them closer and closer to the decision that the boy was innocent. that one juror saved an inoc ent mans life by thoroughly examining every fact. this movie blew my mind
i think that juror #3 was being prugidice from past experiences, but the movie did show how persuasion is very powerful and can be used for good and bad but in this situation we dont know which way it is because we dont know if he was really guilty or nonguily. juror #8 was a very good persuasioner and was able to persuade everyone on the jury to his side. juror #10(the funny old man) was also a good juror in the way he pionted out the glasses and was very strong with #8.
After thinking about it and reading other people's comments, i agree with Doronathan, it should have been a hung jury so that other people could have decided on the boy's trial too because if you really look closely it seems like they were all trying to choose a side: juror #3 or juror #8. They all were being persuaded to choose a side and some of them were going back and forth because of peer pressure. I don't think they were truly confident in their arguments until the end of the movie but i think it should have been decided by another jury in another case because they were all back and forth and weren't very sure and confident.
#JUROR #10!!!!!!!
Jurors # 3, 10 based their opinions on prejudice expecially(sp?) juror #10 who also openly bitter and rascist. Juror #8, and 5exercise reverse discrimination. I don'r think the trial should be a hung jury because the case is very important and could affect whether or not the defendant lives or not. The fact that the jurors saw indentions on the sides of the woman witness and the experiment with the old man being able to walk out of the building in 15 seconds was in y opinion an very persuasive evidence in favor forthe defense.
I believe that all twelve of the character where prejudiced. All humans have opinions, and I had this been a real court case, that the jury was thinking that no child would just Stab their Father, it's bad enough to killsomebody, but you have to be pretty darn cold to kill your own Father. But as we could see in the movie by the time the six day trail was over, elevan of the jurors thought he was a guilty man. Juror 18 was the only one who believed the kid was not guilty, and that he seemed like a nice kid and their was room for reasonable doubt. To restate all of us are opinated, I mean come on we are commenting on a blog right now, but we are also easily influenced. Remember the mock trial? In that case (as pointed out by the judge afterward) we had chosen our sides with no evidence what so ever, just listening to some scripted arguments about why Ally McGraw was or
was not guilty of marijuana possesion. We all just
watched or inacted the case and decided after a certin
argument or a really convincing witness statement that
Ally was or wasn't guilty, and me and my fellow jurors
voted that way. The situation in the movie reminded me
of our mock trail. In the movie the Jurours discuss that
one turning piece of evidence for them, the one that
made the most sense to them. Then they pick at it until it stops being a witness statement from an elderly man and starts being a cry for attention from a lonely senior.
Thank You Mr.Veliz for letting us watch that movie. My dad said that that movie was his favorite.
Post a Comment