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
17 comments:
Hello people of Earth. ☺ ☻ ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠
I forethough this was and were to be a good, and interesting movie. The actions desplayed the over all drama and expression on how they try persuading one another, and the heated discussion rushing from the mouths of others. And the illusive examples of evidence pondering from each side of evidence. As I watched I have noticed that the Juror # 10 & 3 are using prejudice, Juror 10 based his prejudice on the ethnicity of the person. And Juror 3 based his prejudice on his misbehaving son, even though his son misbehaved he can be different than others. "You should not judge a book by its cover". Yes, Juror 8 does not exercise reverse discrimination but uses it. The trail should not be a hung jury, because since Juror 8 has used and dug deep to get other evidence so he could use it to convince and persuade the other Jurors. I liked the part when Juror 8 pulled out the exact same knife as the convicted persons. And how he mentioned and demonstrated the evidence which people seemed to follow and therefore making them change there votes. It explains and demonstrates that persuasion is a powerful tool and should not be taken lightly. It can convince things on which has a few things to support it. It can cause minds to ponder and worlds to change. It is a common tool but can be used to hurt or destroy or create life... Well that was long.... Eh... Jan Espino
I loved this movie. I believe this showed the art of persuasion perfectly in how one man changed eleven others mind about a murder case, a very important case. Juror #8 had a type of personality that fits him perfectly. He is slick and is very good with words. Others in the jury room, such as juror #3, let their emotions get to the best of them. I'll finish later... Have to turn the computer off.
I've never watched an old black and white movie before, but though being old it was a great movie. I think the fact that they were there for like two days, they were at each other, hot and sweaty, tired, and frustrated just to come down to the unexpected vote of "not guilty" is incredible. In the deliberation room there was prejudice taken from peoples personal lives for example Juror 3 and his "ungrateful son". Also there was a lot of persuasion going on, some people changed sides like 4 times, that's how you know how much power is in words if you could boggle ones mind. During the movie, i can see why its called "12 Angry Men" in the deliberation room people were letting their emotions get the best of them which caused a lot of commotion and confusion. At some points of the movie i felt as if some people , Juror 3, weren't having disagreeing feelings against the opposing votes, but as if they were having hard feelings against certain people themselves. They were sort of attacking each other. I think that all these factors in the end came down for each and every person to decide on one vote.
I think this movie was realy good :). I think that jurors 3&10 used prejudice but juror REALLY based his answer on his son and the past experiences they've had together only realizing that the defendant who was tried in court was NOT his son and should not let his vote be affected by it at the end. I also agree within when he says "yes, juror 8 does not exercise reverse desrimination but uses it. No the trial should not have be a hung jury because there was too much doubt and questions about the evidence that was contrivisal to the conviction of guilty.I think that the evidence that supported the defendant the most was when juror 8 pulled out the switch blade knife that was "one of a kind" and that there were "only 10ish of them". Well I think that juror 8 really made a huge statement when he pulled out his same knife that he had got from a store about 2-3miles away from the store that the defendant went to. The movie teaches us that in order to persuade someone you must have facts behind your driving force or what you think happened. Looking deep into the case and listening to EVERY point they make. Over all the movie was gr8 and would see it again. STAY IN SKOOL MY FRIENDS SO THT U MAY LEARN 2 BE MORE PERSUASIVE!!!!! :):):):) peace out girl scouts :):):):)
Well, I do have to say this was quite a good movie and i thoroughly enjoyed it. Now to the questions... It was extremely evident that juror #3 was prejudice. He simply voted guilty because of his relationship to his own son and how they got along. It was a very biased vote. Juror #10 is also prejudiced because he's against the defendants race. Juror #8 does practice reverse discrimination because he sees where the boy came from and where he grew up so he's sympathetic towards him. I'm not sure whether it should have been a hung jury because i need to see the trial to be able to make that decision. Juror #8 definitely would have been an excellent defense attorney. He used so many things to persuade people to vote not guilty. For example, the lady not being able to see the boy because she didn't have her glasses on, the rarity of the knife, but mostly the loud train going by were good persuasion tools. The prosecution only had a good point in saying that the defendant had a criminal record so this wasn't the first time he had done something wrong. The movie teaches a great deal about persuasion. If you have reliable evidence you can convince someone practically anything.
I believe that at the begining of the movie everyone was voteing guilty sinply because the majority and did not have the gutts to against some of the more violent jours.(#3)from the very begining #3 seemed to be voting guilty even befor he heard the defendant. i believe that this was because he was comparing the boy to his own son and created bias. I sincerely applaude #8 for remaining calm throughtout the session even when some lost all reason and simply started yelling pointlesly about facts that have already been proved to be flawed or putting their own bias into the argument.
This was a very good movie. I think most of the jurors were voting guilty simply because they felt pressured or didn't really care. This should not have been a hung jury because Juror #8 made some valid points proving some evidence to be false. A good point made was when Juror #8 brought up how it was impossible for the old man to hear the boy because of the train, he also said it was very unlikely for the women to see the killing because she wasn't wearing her glasses and lastly when he questioned another juror about the movie he saw and that under the circumstances the kid could have honestly not remembered the movie he was, however prosecution made a good point about the knife, even though juror #8 had the same knife i don't think the knife would have fallen out of his pocket so easily through a hole. Juror #3 definitely came in the room with bias. He looked at his own relationship with his son to give his opinion on whether the boy should be guilty or not.
I think this movie was awsome!! I believe that the art of persusion was how juror #8 was able to convinced ever last one of the juror that the boy was not guilty. It may not have been easy, though he stuck to his word and brought up many good points to make them change there mind.
This movie was fantastic! It may have been one or 2 scenes throughout the movie, but it really changed my verdict. At first I thought the defendent was guility but after I heard all the interesting comments and opinions, at the end I was convinced that he was not guility. No one knows for sure but it was a good argument. Juror 8 knew exactly what he was talking about. He really payed attention to the case during the trial. And payed attention to the details. Thats what helped his argument the most. I do not believe it shouldve been a hung jury. Their verdict made since. Juror 8 also provided some evidence which that also helped him.
I thought this movie was very interesting and a very good movie.All of the actions displayed by the jurors showed the overall drama of the whole movie and how they were persuading one another to think something different than they originally thought in the begging of the entire movie. The evidence they found that was not pronounced throughout the case was some things i would have not thought about in the begging of the discussion. Throughout the movie juror # 3 and 10 were using prejudice ("Judge a book by its cover"). Juror #3 based it on the ethnicity (race, religion, color of the skin, and or the age) of the defendant in the murder case. Juror #10 based it on the thought of his son and how he has not seen him since he hit his father. Juror #8 first votes as not guilty because he is not sure what to think yet but as soon as he starts explaining he is certain that the boy is not guilty. I agree with everyone that has commented on the blog. I love this movie!!!!!!!
I never thought this movie would be good but...I loved it! It was really interesting to see how different Jurors expressed there sides. I think most of the "talkative" justices proved their opinions well, but the ones who used prejustice the most were juror number 3 and juror number 10. It was hard at first to see how they expressed it but later i caught on to the positions. It was interesting at the end to see how everyone concluded their position as not guilty. I was quite suprised after the long and tiring disputes between jurors. It was all in the evidence but some people new he was not guilty. Evidince to me is the most important tool in deciding someone guilty or not guilty. This movie demonstrated the powers of pursuasion. I do agree that at the beginning no one wanted to be here at the case or have literal votes.
I never thought this movie would be good but...I loved it! It was really interesting to see how different Jurors expressed there sides. I think most of the "talkative" justices proved their opinions well, but the ones who used prejustice the most were juror number 3 and juror number 10. It was hard at first to see how they expressed it but later i caught on to the positions. It was interesting at the end to see how everyone concluded their position as not guilty. I was quite suprised after the long and tiring disputes between jurors. It was all in the evidence but some people new he was not guilty. Evidince to me is the most important tool in deciding someone guilty or not guilty. This movie demonstrated the powers of pursuasion. I do agree that at the beginning no one wanted to be here at the case or have literal votes.
I didn't really like the movie other than the heated debates. I think juror #3 was most prejudice. Other than #3 , juror #10 was the other member that showed prejuidice. He showed racism. This case should not have been hung. It shouldn't have because the next set of jurors probably would have went right to guilty without and thought. A piece of evidence that would have took me to not guilty. The piece was of the el-line and the old man walking. Juror #8 showed a lot of courage going against 11 other people.
I really enjoyed this movie. The plot was very interesting: 12 men who have never meant have to agree on a court case. That provided for a good movie. I also thought that it was a very difficult thing to do to convince 11 other men that the defendant was not guilty, and that Juror #8 provided for a very good protagonist. There were, in my opinion, two jurors who exibited prejudice:Juror number 3 and juror number 10. They both really had strong opinions about this case that blinded their judgement. In court cases, everyone needs to be treated fairly and unbiased. I also thought that this should have been a hung jury because the eighth juror planted a seed of reasonably doubt in my mind. His evidence and key points made me think differently. Juror number eight had a very nuetral opinion and wanted justice to truely be carried out the right way. This movie really say that persuasion can change people's viewpoints and make them think in a different way. It gives a person the opinion and the side of an argument. This allows that person to make an informed decision. That is what this movie was all about. Persuasion by juror number eight allowed for the other jurors to make an informed decision about this case.
I also think that the key points Jan made are very true: persuasion can change the thoughts of people, and the way the world operates.
I really enjoyed this movie. I liked how there was a lot of debating and persuasion. Juror #3 seemed to be the most predudice, in my opinion. He based his vote off of his expierence with his own son. Juror #10 was a little prejudice as well. This trial shouldn't have been a hung jury because, like William Choi said, the next set jurors probably would not have put a lot of thought into the chance of him being not guilty. The more persuasive evidence is on the side of the defense, which juror #8 brought up most of it. It really surprised me how he changed everyone's vote.
Post a Comment