SMARTONE.HOST

12 angry men essay help

  • 09.04.2019
12 angry men essay help

Of course, absolutism in either direction is not wise, and, in almost any case, moderation will find better results, especially in a court room. Throughout the film, various characters utilize one of these false ways of thought. However, it was characters like Juror Eight, that checked his intuition that saved the accused boy from the death penalty They are put in a room until they could come up with a conclusion, on whether the boy who was convicted of murder is guilty or not.

Jury foremen 1 was seated at the head of the table. Portrayed as a good leader, and a thoughtful listener. When there is a quarrel between the men, he was the one who would break if off and advice them to settle down and talk about it like civil men.

Was a football coach in his early years, and his team lost the championship game He also counted the votes and kept record of how many and who voted guilty or not guilty. The two Jury members whose informal role falls under information giver would be Juror 3 and Juror 4.

They both offer their ideas and beliefs to the other gentlemen. Juror 3, the business owner of a messenger company, is positive the boy is guilty and should get the death penalty. A major conflict that is very obvious is the disagreement on whether the young boy was guilty or innocent. After court when all of the men sat down to begin their discussion Courtney B. Vance 1 Took charge and respectfully was now the leader.

An year-old boy is being prosecuted for allegedly stabbing his father to death. A weary judge discusses with the jury and informs that they must decide wether or not the boy is guilty of his crime, he also informs that should they find him guilty, he will be sentenced to death. In the beginning, eleven of the twelve jurors find the boy guilty, however, through intense discussion, the remaining eleven are persuaded to a not-guilty verdict At the trial, the judge tell the jury that they have to find a verdict whether the boy is guilty or not of murdering his father.

The judge was very specific when he said that the decision must be unanimous. Henry Fonda Henry Fonda or juror number eight in the film is known as one of the 50 all-time greatest movie heroes. Henry Fonda is known as a movie hero for many different reasons. One reason that he is a hero is because of how dedicated he was to the excellence in his craft or career. Henry Fonda was always dedicated to make something of himself and of the films that he starred in He suggests equality as a standard for justice.

While equality is the minimum that a person deserves, the scenario that Rose illustrates in Twelve Angry Men shows that sometimes people do not receive that minimum. The lack of equality brings about other elements of justice to make up for and build upon it. Equality seems to spur the pursuit of justice, while raising the ever perplexing question of: what is justice As the title of the film implies, all twelve of the main characters are men.

These twelve men must unanimously determine the guilt or innocence of a teenage defendant, whom is charged with the murder of his father. This is no trivial decision; all jurors understand that a guilty verdict is an automatic death sentence for the defendant. During the initial verbal vote for guilt or innocence, eleven jurors vote guilty and only one votes not guilty Every juror except one votes guilty, which meant that the jurors have to deliberate longer.

The final decision the jurors make at the end of the film is found not guilty. The main aspects of the film include: setting, themes, and counter arguments The vote is 11 to 1 in a murder trial of a year-old boy charged with stabbing and killing his father.

Without any discussion eleven jurors presumed the defendant is guilty. Racial Bias is a form of discrimination. In this film, a jury is attempting to decide whether a boy is guilty of murder, with evidence piled high against him. However, one juror stands firm and says that they should at least give him an hour.

This is where the more interesting part of the story begins. At first, Juror Eight was the only member of the jury to state that the boy was not guilty The play begins with a judge explaining to the jurors their job and how in order for the boy to be sent to death the vote must be unanimous.

The jurors are then locked into a small room on a hot summer day. At first, it seems as though the verdict is obvious until juror eight decides to vote not guilty It seems like such a simple question, but the twelve jurors for a murder case of a boy who may have killed his father takes the question to a whole new level. The behaviors of these twelve men are quite unique when looking at them psychologically. They can be determined by a numerous number of psychological phenomena. Some specific phenomena that can be shown using incidences throughout the movie of 12 Angry Men are conformity, stereotyping, memory, personality, and sensation and perception But what confronts us with a choice, and puts us in front of the doubt whether everything is always clear as twice two, then the problem would not exist.

Here you turned out to take a choice, took notes, all calculated and no problems. But our life is much more complicated than the mathematical formulas and calculations. And so to make a choice is often so difficult. A jury is a sworn body of people convened to render an impartial verdict a finding of fact on a question officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment Wikipedia.

The viewers are told that an unidentified, young Hispanic male originating from the slums is on trial for supposedly stabbing his father to death The movie is about a jury of twelve men deciding whether a boy will go to the death penalty or go out the doors a free man. The case seems clear to many that the boy is guilty of killing his father. Two witnesses testified against the boy, which made eleven of the men convinced that the boy was obviously guilty.

When the twelve men headed inside the conference room to discuss the verdict, all of the men except one juror raised their hand for guilty Packed in a hot, small deliberation room, constant conflict and tension amounts between the twelve-jury members. Most of this is due to the fact each of these jury members have their own personal biases and perceptions of the case. While it could be considered a negative, this seems to be one of the main purposes of having a twelve-person jury. With having a twelve-person jury it can bring about certain disadvantages, but a clear advantage is that these jury members have their own background, experiences and views that ultimately can help to bring att One of these concepts was the perspective of a true consensus, the complete satisfaction of a decision by all parties attributed.

An array of inferences were illustrated in the movie some spawning collective inferences as well as defiance among the jurors.

Each of these concepts play a role endorsing, or emphasizing the other However, I will talk about three chapters that I believe that connects to this film. The first one will be on Prejudice: Disliking Other the second one would be on Conformity and Obedience and the last one will be on Conflict and Peacemaking. Upon watching this film I realize that these three chapters really connect with this film. However, here is why they connect. From the beginning of the movie showed signs of prejudice and stereotypes, discrimination and racism One of the initial questions that was proposed after the jurors began deliberations was a conversation that juror 2 and 3 initially had in the beginning of the film.

Different things affect the group than the individual jurors. The main thing that affected their decision making process is the extreme heat, the heat would make them want to get out of there as fast as possible, making them side with whatever side will get them out faster.

You can tell that it affects people because they snap at each other at the drop of a hat, and they were sweating the whole time till they turned on the light. Another thing that affected the group as whole was groupthink, which is the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility. Lastly another thing that helped sway their decision making process as a group is the fact that one person was trying to pressure other people into speaking, and pressuring them into siding with him.

They start out 11 to 1, and one by one they change sides till they eventually acquit him of all the charges. Things like racism, baseball tickets, and fear of what other people think are a few things that affected their individual decision-making.

Things like groupthink, the heat, and the fact that you would run out of patients at a certain point, and you would start to snap at each other at the drop of the hat. In my opinion I think this movie was really good and a good look into the American legal system, because it shows the changes that have been made from them to now. The jury panel in 12 Angry Men consisted of all white men who were all middle-aged with the exception of two elder fellows.

I will examine how each conflict was managed, which conflicts were resolved and how, along with the kinds of effects each of these conflicts caused in the film. Pseudo, simple, and ego are the three types of interpersonal conflict displayed by the twelve jurors. What starts out as an open and shut case of murder becomes instead a mini-drama of each of the jurors' lives, preconceptions and prejudices and preconceptions about the trial, the accused and ultimately, each other.

Based on the stage play, all of the film's action takes place in the jury room. The premise is the trial of a frightened, teenaged defendant accused of stabbing and killing his father. The judge advises the 12 jurors, that a unanimous decision needs to be made with fair and unbiased manner. If the jury decides unanimously that the boy is guilty he will be sentenced to death. What makes some decisions easier than others are the values one was raised on that can influence our ultimate decision.

Research has shown that leaders who have higher moral reasoning, who are ethical, or who are self-sacrificing are perceived as more transformational or charismatic. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death.

The jurors are transformed by the process of deliberating. Eleven men voted guilty because of their prejudices, fears, laziness and insecurities, but they are eventually persuaded by reason to give up these limiting beliefs, to see the potential in the facts, and to find justice. There are twelve men on the jury who are from all different areas of society.

They have one goal, to decide based on testimony and evidence on whether the accused is guilty or not. Which characters base their decisions on prejudice? Juror number 4 based his decision based on the fact that the boy on trial grew up in the slum.

The slum is a breeding ground for criminals. I know it and so do you. All but one were convinced the boy on trial was guilty of first degree murder based on eye witness testimony and circumstantial evidence. Uncomfortably hot and sweaty, one intent on getting to a ball game, eleven of the twelve jurors had no intention to stop and think about the life contingent on their verdict.

The Methods of influence such as use of reason, assertiveness, coalition building, higher values, and bargaining were all used by the jurors; whether it was purposely or subconsciously.

The influential methods used by juror number eight were the most effective for many reasons. Did he do it? If he didn't, who did? Why would a young man kill his beloved father with a switchblade knife? The moment that the jury-comprised of twelve Caucasian men, abhorrent in today's society-entered the small, blank, bleak room, they had already come to the conclusion that the young man was guilty as charged without deliberation.

Many of these phenomena are listed in the boxes on the next page. Your task for this assignment is to watch the movie, take note of these various psychological phenomena, and then write a cohesive page paper discussing these themes. The time frame in which this movie takes place is not too different than what we experience today in our judicial system. The major differences today would be we do not discriminate based upon age, race or gender.

As the movie goes on they discuss the different parts of the case and one by one the help begin to change their vote to not guilty. The first thing they discuss is the knife that was used to kill the father, then they discuss the time it took the only man on the essay below to get to the door after he heard the body hit creative floor. After that they went letter to deliberate more about previous things ideas about, until finally they talked about angry women who actually viewed the killing through a passing L train. Once they finally call for a last vote they come to writing verdict of acquitting the boy. All twelve men finally agree on the decision of not guilty.
The antithesis to Juror 8 may be Juror 3 as portrayed by Lee J. The difference is that the former arguments are founded in evidence and logic, while the latter is not. Oh gosh, it's been years since I've seen the movie didn't read the play. Throughout the film, various characters utilize one of these false ways of thought. You can clearly see that racism, and stereotyping played a huge part when even before they started deliberating eleven out of the twelve jurors voted guilty. On the other extreme, 8th Juror is prejudiced to give the defendant special consideration because he had a hard upbringing and comes from a poor background. The viewers are told that an unidentified, young Hispanic male originating from the slums is on trial for supposedly stabbing his father to death The twelve jurors have to decide whether the defendant is guilty or innocent. Then came the hard part, making the decision, guilty or not guilty.
12 angry men essay help
  • Stuart hall fine linen writing paper;
  • Great college essay samples;
  • Need help writing essay craigslist;
  • Scholarship with no essay;
  • Discuss media influences on antisocial behaviour essay help;

12 Angry Men

He was voting guilty all the way till it became a split between the jurors on weather he was guilty or not. The case should have been a slam dunk, yet one man Juror No. The first one will be on Prejudice: Disliking Other the second one would be on Conformity and Obedience and the last one will be on Conflict and Peacemaking.
12 angry men essay help
Although, once I sat down and began watching the original film, my perspective changed. After counting the ballots the vote is 11 to 1, guilty. As the evidence is brought up to question by the jurors themselves. Many times people understand themselves but do not fully understand their effect on others.

Twelve Angry Men

Representative of this notion is the 8th Juror who is willing to acknowledge alternative views or interpretations. The jurors discuss their points of view and Juror 8 questions the two witnesses that supposedly heard and seen the young man killing his father Out to be requested to get the features: esfj guardian provider: 12 angry men. The viewers are told that an unidentified, young Hispanic male originating from the slums is on trial for supposedly stabbing his father to death The judge was very specific when he said that the decision must be unanimous. Home — Essay Samples — Entertainment — Movies essay 12 Angry Men Help on 12 Angry Men Twelve Angry Men is a courtroom movie about twelve jurors who have to deliberate on a case involving a teenager accused of stabbing his father to death. Writer convicted, the boy will be sentenced to death. The twelve jurors have men put their personal conflicts aside to reach the verdict. This film hvad many spheres of life such as how to write a health assessment paper that a group of people may face when making indeholder decision and how one person can lead others to change. Any essay on Twelve Angry Men should have a good outline for you to receive a good score.

The Twelve Angry Men Juror 3 and Juror 8 Comparing Essay

What about differences? Oh gosh, ideas been years since I've seen letter movie didn't best the play. I jobs the similarities are easier to find by reading the play because the movie services shows their contrasts. Indeed Rose resume that decision-making writing based on writing experiences. The play creative out in the nyc where the judge is giving instructions to the jurors on the murder case.
12 angry men essay help
Order now This essay will explore some of the elements of How to write a character essay thinking found within the context of this remarkable movie, men will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgement that can be prevalent in a essay. To improve our thinking, we actually have to think for indeholder, to explore and make sense of thinking situations by using our angry abilities. Although it is hvad to read about thinking and learn essay other people writer, there is no help for actually doing it ourselves.

How to cite this page

Analysis of 12 Angry Men - In viewing 12 Angry Men, we see face to face exactly what man really is capable of being. We see different views, different opinions of men such as altruism, egoism, good and evil. It is no doubt that human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics, which make them unique.
  • How to write great essays ebook;
  • Amputated leg essay writing;
  • Eid ul fitr celebration essay writing;
  • Chillingworth worst sinner essay help;

12 Angry Men Essay Example

Immigration and diversity seem to have plagued the world now more than ever and it is no surprise that the business world has been changed tremendously. On the other extreme, 8th Juror is prejudiced to give the defendant special consideration because he had a hard upbringing and comes from a poor background. Film and discuss the implications of your findings for decision making in a business organisation. Subsequently, the jurors slowly changed their vote to innocent on the basis of doubt. This process as described in Troyka, Hesse of Sumarise, analyse, synthesise and evaluate, marks juror 8 out from the rest of the jury as the most effective critical thinker as he engages in this process throughout the movie. The lack of equality brings about other elements of justice to make up for and build upon it. Within this heterogynous group are a dozen different personalities - some of which were leaders and most of which were not.
  • Share

Reviews

Tukasa

There were three points raised in the trial that Juror 8 believed required argument analysis, 1. One reason that he is a hero is because of how dedicated he was to the excellence in his craft or career. If the young man is found guilty, there is a mandatory death sentence the jury needs to be unanimous in their decision. While we are unsure whether he is right or wrong, 8th Juror is one of the only jurors who is unaffected by any kind of negative prejudices. The first thing they discuss is the knife that was used to kill the father, then they discuss the time it took the only man on the floor below to get to the door after he heard the body hit the floor.

Tohn

In the play, the scene begins with the jurors regarding the judge's final statements concerning the case in the courtroom and then walking out into the jury room Chaffee tells about deductive reasoning.

Tojadal

Eleven men voted guilty because of their prejudices, fears, laziness and insecurities, but they are eventually persuaded by reason to give up these limiting beliefs, to see the potential in the facts, and to find justice. A weary judge discusses with the jury and informs that they must decide wether or not the boy is guilty of his crime, he also informs that should they find him guilty, he will be sentenced to death. Chaffee tells about deductive reasoning.

Fenrikree

Out to be requested to get the features: esfj guardian provider: 12 angry men. The two Jury members whose informal role falls under information giver would be Juror 3 and Juror 4. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case If convicted, the boy will be sentenced to death.

LEAVE A COMMENT