What Is 12 Angry Men Jury Duty

In the drama, “Twelve Angry Men,” by Reginald Rose. A 19 year old boy is a suspect in the murdering of his father. A jury of twelve men is left to decide his fate, guilty or not guilty. Juror 10 is biased and a hypocrite, which helped them reach a unanimous vote of not guilty.

“12 Angry Men,” written by Reginald Rose, is a drama or play about a boy who is put on trial for murdering his father. 12 jurors are put into the jury room to discuss and come up with the boy's verdict, but they can't come up with a unanimous decision. Juror 8 stands alone with his opinion of “not guilty,” but he isn’t the only one who convinces the rest of the jury for “not guilty.” Juror 9 also has an impact on the vote to be unanimous in favor of “not guilty.” Juror 9 played an important role for the verdict to be “not guilty” by trying to prove other points against the boy being “guilty.”

Ultimately, this leads to Juror 4 and Juror 8 to use their wits and reasoning to persuade the other jurors to choose between “guilty,” or “not guilty.” In the drama Twelve Angry Men, Rose indirectly characterizes Juror #4 as reasonable, in order

The jurors continually exhibit the opposite of the aforementioned emotions and beliefs. After the protest by the 8th Juror about the oddly quick guilty verdict voted on by the jurors, the 7th Juror dismissed him continually, “It’s just that we’re talking about somebody’s life here. I mean, we can’t decide in five minutes. Suppose we’re wrong? 7TH

When juror number three finally speaks, “not guilty!”(Rose 1957) After realizing his prejudice, all along, it brings attention to the reader, turning their heads, and feeling relief as though the defendant is not guilty. Since juror number ten and juror number three were the most headstrong and argumentative, the moments of their final realization were very important. When the murder weapon is brought into the room, journal number eight contradicts the court's evidence and pulls out a replica of the knife. The evidence is automatically unreasonable.

Juror #3 is another member of the jury who holds preconceived notions that prevent him from seeing the truth. He is convinced that the defendant is guilty and refuses to consider any evidence that suggests otherwise. When one of the other jurors suggests that the defendant might be innocent, Juror #3 responds with anger, accusing him of being biased in favor of "those people. " He cannot separate his own prejudices from the facts of the case, and as a result, he is unable to reach a fair

Because of this, the court's ability to reach a unanimous and just verdict is delayed. Additionally, Juror 3's stubbornness can be seen in his attitude towards the defendant's alibi which is shown when he exclaims, “You’re

In "Twelve Angry Men," written by Reginald Rose, the jurors base their decisions on their own prejudices rather than solely on the evidence presented in court. Throughout the play, various examples of prejudice are exposed, and these biases ultimately shape the jurors' decisions. In this essay, I will identify different forms of prejudice exposed in the play and explain how they impact the jurors' decision-making process. One form of prejudice exposed in the play is racism. For example, Juror 10 is openly racist and refers to the defendant, who is of a different race, as "these people."

He realizes this when he “contorts [his face] and he begins to pound on [the] table with his fist,” and “seems [to be] about to cry” (Rose 63). This is when Juror 3 realizes that his negative experience with his son has dictated his distaste toward the boy and that he had no real reason to oppose him as much as he did. Though being the most stubborn of the jurors, being able to re-examine the beliefs and opinions he is so fixated on empowers Juror 3 to be able to demonstrate personal accountability, showing how important personal accountability is to confronting one’s past and biases. Throughout the play, because of his loud and opinionated personality, Juror 3 assumes leadership of those voting guilty. This is in stark contrast to Juror 8, a thoughtful person who is willing to give the benefit of the doubt who is the first person to vote not guilty to give the boy a chance.

Have your ever thought about the flaws in our US Legal System shown in Twelve Angry Men? In our US Legal System, we have major flaws that we have found to realize, but never fixed. These flaws show how the US Legal System treats the citizens. During the play, we see the judge on the first page mention, "I urge you to deliberate honestly and thoughtfully". This was not done during the play, which this'll show how the jury system can be like.

The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar

This movie is the best example of minority influence where in the earlier stage only one juror no. 8 says defendant is not guilty but in the end of the movie we see that he is able to influence all the jurors in a very logical manner which I am going to point out later so that all the jurors lastly says the defendant is not guilty. Minority influence is more likely to occur if the point of view of the minority is consistent, flexible, and appealing to the majority. The juror no. 8 doesn’t know defendant is guilty or not guilty but he has only doubt in his mind which he trying to clear during the entire film and with which he also able to clear the views of other

Juror 3 was intimidating the other jurors, trying to convince them to stick with the guilty verdict. Juror 2 was guilty of self-censorship agreeing with the rest of the group to influence his decisions. The whole group began with the illusion of unanimity. According to Janis illusion of unanimity is, “the majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.” (Psysr.org,

‘Twelve Angry Men’ written by Reginald Rose, is based on the story of a jury who have to come together to determine the fate of a young boy accused to have murdered his own father. Initially, eleven of the jurors vote not guilty with one of the juror being uncertain of the evidence put before them. As the men argue over the different pieces of evidence, the insanity begins to make sense and the decision becomes clearer as they vote several other times. Rose creates drama and tension in the jury room, clearly exploring through the many issues of prejudice, integrity and compassion, in gaining true justice towards the accused victim. These aspects have been revealed through three character who are Juror 10, Juror 8 and Juror 3.

The justice system that relies on twelve individuals reaching a life-or-death decision has many complications and dangers. The play Twelve Angry Men, by Reiginald Rose, illustrates the dangers of a justice system that relies on twelve people reaching a life-or-death decision because people are biased, they think of a jury system as an inconvenience, and many people aren’t as intelligent as others. The first reason why Reiginald illustrates dangers is because people can be biased or they can stereotype the defendant. The Jurors in Twelve Angry Men relate to this because a few of them were biased and several of them stereotyped the defendant for being from the slums. The defendant in this play was a 19 year old kid from the slums.