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 this movie was entertaining and informative. However while it may be fun to watch, it was, sorta, kinda teaching us about what happens in a jury room. The jurors, argue, fight, and persuade the others to vote the way you do. Everyone has a different opinion about things, and e are entitled to those opinions, we do like to have people see things our way though. The jurors, all had different opinions on why or why not the boy was guilty. Juror number eight, the first to vote not guilty, voted this way because he wasn't sure if the boy was innocent or not. In the end only one juror was left standing and he then voted not guilty. This is a result of persuasion. Thank you.
I think this was an intersting movie to watch. It teaches us what conversations happen during a jury. I dont think this sould of been a hung jury. This is because juror #3 knew that the child was innocent. When he told why he thought the boy was guilty he wanted to know what everyone thought about his ideas so badly. Juror #8 was the "leader" of the opposing side. At first his intentions were uncertin, but throught the disscutions he knew that the boy was not guilty. The procution had good points that could of killed the boy, but the little things changed this. Like how the woman saw the boy kill his father, but she was not wearing her glasses and saw a blur. How the L trains sound muffled the boys scream im going to kill you. Juror #8 and 9 used persusasion to convince the other jurors that the boy was innocent.
I thought this movie was very helpful in understanding what really goes on when a jury decides the fate of the defendant. They must look at all of the evidence and decide whether it is valid and grounded only in facts. Juror #8 did an excellent job of convincing the rest of the jury that the boy should not be found guilty by using strong powers of persuasion. The most persuasive pieces of evidence for the defense was that the woman could have not been wearing her glasses, and therefore not able to see the boy clearly killing his father and that the knife his father was killed with could have belonged to someone else. The most persuasive pieces for the prosecution were that the man heard the boy running downstairs after the man was murdered and that he couldn't remember the details of the movie he had supposedly just seen. I don't think it should have been a hung jury and the boy definitely shouldn't have been found guilty, because there are too many possibilities that the witnesses could have been mistaken or the boy could be telling the truth. The death penalty is extremely serious and should be thought about and talked over for a good amount of time, until everyone agrees and has no other objections to the final verdict. The movie teaches that the art of persuasion is essential in court, in the jury and in just about any other situation where you are trying to convince someone your side is correct. Juror #3 and #10 base their decisions on prejudice and only at the end do they finally see that the boy should not be found guilty.
I agree with rachel alot, without juror#8 ability to persuade all of the other juror men, he had the abilty to find clues and things in the facts and evidence that effected everyone he was very good at disproving facts, besides him everyone starting off with 11 to 1 guilty thought he was crazy but he was the only one whop really went deep into the case. this was a very entertaining movie thought it had important facts on what happens in a jury room, there is usally one person who does what he did. I thought in the middle of the case it should have been a hung jury because everything was half and half, juror#8 was the only one at the begining because he was not sure if he was guilty. it say inncent untile proven guilty so thats is what stoped him saying to himself are these facts proven enough for that kid to be sent to death?, later it was a no. though this movie was black and white it was very colorful its own way. Well at the end they all decided not guilty with a strugle for jury#3 but still at the end the found the defentant not guilty the juror#8 was the most persuadsive there. it was a very good movie also informative thank you mr. veliz:)
This movie gives us a good idea about how the deliberation of the jury works. I believe that this should not have been a hung jury because of the evidence that juror #8 presented which was solely based on facts. I believe that juror #10 used reverse discrimination. The knife was the most important piece of evidence because juror #8 proved that this was not the only knife like its kind. This movie teaches that the art of persuasion is a tool that you can use for just about anything. I agree with Joanie, the prosecution side had some good evidence that could've gotten away if they didn't examine it closer and looked at the small things like the womans marks on her nose, or the train. If juror #8 had not had the evidence and determination that he had, the kid could have been voted guilty, with the help of his ability to persuade he proved against this.
I thought this movie was very informative. It showed the enthusiasm of some people that are in juries and how they persuade others. They persuaded others through facts and analyzation (if thats a word) of the information provided. It also showed how little unnoticeable things can take big parts in the decisions of the jurors. For example, the whole glasses incident. The lady would not have seen distinctly the boy run out of the house. She must have just assumed that it was him because he was accused. Also, the train going by played a big role. The knife being rare to the salesman could not be good evidence because one of the jurors had one himself, showing that it could have been another killer with the same knife. Juror # 8 greatly influenced the decisions and soon juror #9 had great evidence too. The power of persuasion is very great. There may have been some information to call him guilty but with not enough information on that side and a lot for him to be innocent you can not call that boy guilty and give him the death penalty.
;)
I thought taking the time to watch this movie in class was very helpful in the fact that we all got to learn what goes on in the jury room. I do not think that there should have been a hung jury because the case would have been presented in front of a different jury, which would not consist of the same man (Juror #8 who originally voted not guilty) who convinced the fact that the young man was not guilty, so the other juror would not think of all of the little things that proved that. Also I agree with Joanie that Juror #8 was the "leader" of all of the people that agreed that the man was not guilty.He had a big role in defending the defense teams side. The prosecution had a strong case, and if it was not for Juror #8 i would have said he was guilty. Juror #3 was only looking at what the prosecution team said, not what the defense team said. He continuously mentioned what the witness said, and how the defendant didn't remember the movie he saw. Being a persuasive juror can save someone's life and prove that a man is innocent even when a lot of the facts would go against that.
I think this movie was very good at showing how a jury debates. To me this was a good movie to spend time on to watch in class. Juror #8 was the most fair and just juror of the whole group. He stuck to what he believed unlike "Mr.TennisBall". The jury that was put together for this case was very diverse, there were mean, prejudice people, and very fair nice people. Take the old man for an example. This movie really shows how persuasion can really make a difference if it is used properly. Juror #8 used persuasiveness through out the whole movie. He finally convinced the other jurors that the boy is innocent. Now I leave...
I think the movie showed how one person can make a difference. Also I like how it showed that the people who voted not guilty could prove all the evidence against the kid wrong.
i agree with cameron
In my opinion, the movie "Twelve Angry Men" can teach anyone the power of persuasion, prejudice, and practicality. For starters, the power of persuasion on the movie on a scale of 1-10 is an 11. At least 20 minutes into the movie, Juror # 8 has convinced already at least 1 juror to acquit the defendent. Second of all, there is a lot of prejudice in thi s movie. For example, Juror #3 wants to send the defendent to the electric chair
In my opinion, the movie "Twelve Angry Men" can teach anyone the power of persuasion, prejudice, and practicality. For starters, the power of persuasion on the movie on a scale of 1-10 is an 11. At least 20 minutes into the movie, Juror # 8 has convinced already at least 1 juror to acquit the defendent. Second of all, there is a lot of prejudice in thi s movie. For example, Juror #3 wants to send the defendent to the electric chair without discussing the case with the other jurors. Why? Because he feels the boy is already guilty because he believes that all children are bad since he had issues with his son. Finally, practicality plays an important role in this movie because some of the evidence didn't seem, well practical. For example, most of the jurors decided that there was no way the woman could've seen the boy stab his father since she wasn't wearing her glasses at the time. Also, after a little demonstration, Juror #8 proves that the old man couldnt've been able to get to the door in time to see the boy run away. To conclude, I don't believe any juror used "reverse discrimination." Also, I think the most convincing piece of evidence came from the defense team. Finally, it's a good thing this wasn't a hung jury because the defendent would've went to a jury that might've found him guilty.
Like Grace and Darrel, I think this was a good movie to watch because it showed us how a jury works.
Like Grace and Darrel, I think this was a good movie to watch because it showed us how a jury works.
Like Grace and Darrel, I think this was a good movie to watch because it showed us how a jury works.
Srry on those last two that were anonymous. I pressed the wrong button twice :)
I agree with adriana on her example of prejudice. Evidence is required to vote somebody guilty especially for a case this serious.
I agree with JOANIE becuase shes smart!!! I also agree with her because the movie was very interesting and it gave us an idea of what a real Jury looks like. To me the key most persuasive and shocking parts are when they notice the other knife, seee that the lady wore glasses and when the guy showed the picture of him and his son. Agian like Joanie said JUROR EIGHT was the chief or leader of the opposing side. i do think it should have been on a hung jury!!!
Like my brother and sister adrianna said i dont think any juror used reverse discrimination. And i agree with them about the prejudice examples.
i meant like my bro and sis adrianna and Josh!!!
I think this movie was really a good film because it showed us what goes on in the jury diliberation room. It shows the process of what ggoes on, and how its not an easy job ad probably the most important job. It showed how one small seed of reasonable doubt can change the whole course of everything. It was also showed various types of persuasion. What was really interesting to me was that juror number 8 was the only one who voted not guilty in the begging but yet everyone voted not guilty in the end. It was very significant that, that happened because that's how mistakes are made. Not examining evidence or facts close enough could really lead to some bad things.
I agree with Eden that it was a great movie to show us right after we did the mock trial at the courthouse. It showed us how the jury makes it desicion in the delliberation room. I loved the movie and how one person can change a persons life, because the boy would've been killed if it weren't for juror #8. I also thought the movie was cool because it was black and white and how juror #8 used 3 facts to change everyones vote. I thought using the power of peer pressure in the movie was cool. Overall this movie was awesome because of these imporant factors that the movie maker dude Reginald Rose used. It was a grest movie based on what we are learning "the legal system."
:)
This movie was a great great movie!!!!!!!
i really believe that there was a lot of discrimination on the 19 year old boy and that is the poor thiing on a case like that you cannot change and that affects many cases
hey i agree with jeremiah alot but this was also a very informative movie on what happens in the jury room or what every it is called, also i agree with caston alot on how they used persuadion,i think jury#8 was the best at that by far he was persuading left and right i mean a guy that can get 11 other men that strongly belived on their first opinion then that is very good.:)
I believe juor #3 and juor #7 were being prejudice because juor #3 just wanted to see him die. He was showing discrimination over this boy and juror #7 just wanted to leave this place. I think juror #8 was really convincing. Every time someone who was trying to persuade the boy was guilty would always get back at them. I think the power of persuasion is a really cool stragedy in convincing others to join your side. Besides all this, I thought the movie was very entertaining and for a movie thats setting is only in one room really drawn me in to what they were talking about.
I agree with abbey on the fact that Juror #7 was being prejudice because he cared more about going to a baseball game than debating on a boy's life.
I also agree with Jeremiah on that this was a great (x 1000)movie!!!!
I agree with Abby on how she said that jurors #3&7 were prejudice. Also i agree on how the one setting really focused the movie.
Post a Comment