The future of this young boy is in your hands now, make the right decision. Save us a lot of time and money. Make the right decision, or the young life of an innocent child will be ruined forever.
He may have bought it for his friend, but the fact still remains that the boy had the knife and then lost it after the murder took place. The women who saw the Kid run out of the house in a flash. This means she would have to identify a man 50 feet away in the dark without glasses.
Juror 11 also changes his vote, believing the boy would not likely have tried to retrieve the murder weapon from the scene if it had been cleaned of fingerprints. However, it becomes evident that the woman has deep indent marks on her nose from her eyeglasses. As Rose points out, group dynamics — the interaction of a range of volatile and sensitive personalities — has an impact on the discussion.
The train was just too loud for him to possibly hear the yells of the boy. How could an old man with poor hearing hear this? When the remaining "guilty" voters are pressed to explain themselves, Juror 4 states that, despite all the previous evidence, the woman from across the street who saw the killing still stands as solid evidence.
One only need think about the George Zimmerman trial who was charged with second-degree murder of the African American, Trayvon Martin in Sidney Lumetwhose prior directorial credits included dramas for television productions such as The Alcoa Hour and Studio Onewas recruited by Henry Fonda and Rose to direct.
Rose relies on real time to show how the deliberation process unravels. Jurors 12, 10 and 4 then change their vote to "not guilty", leaving only Juror 3.
It could also mean that the old man was not telling the truth.
Group dynamics The clashing of egos and the rising conflict among the jurors is reflected in the oppressive atmosphere of the jury room. He mentions that he has three children. Besides, what makes you think the kid cared about his father?
What about the old man claiming to hear the boy yell? The Guard unlocks the door at the end suggesting the release of their bigoted ideas.
If found guilty, the boy will receive a death sentence. This is a quiet, frightened, insignificant old man who has been nothing all his life, who has never had recognition….
A meek and unpretentious bank worker who is at first dominated by others, but as the climax builds, so does his courage. Increasingly impatient, Juror 7 changes his vote to hasten the deliberation, which earns him the ire of other jurors especially 11 for voting frivolously; still he insists, unconvincingly, that he actually thinks the boy is not guilty.
Think of this, how could a young boy do this to his father? That is why this boy is innocent.
I would like to revewthe purchase of the knife, the old man hearing a yell, and the movie theater. The 10th juror is uncomfortably suffering from a flu, which predisposes him to a hasty resolution. He is the fifth to vote "not guilty"; played by John Fiedler.
The 3rd and 10th jurors are typical of those who discriminate against the boy from the start of the trial by virtue of his poverty-stricken background and dysfunctional upbringing. Log in or register now. He lives in the slum, a very dangerous place.
I am sure he did not care to look at the title of the movie. The old man was also under oath when he gave his claim and said that he had heard the boy say such a thing through the el train.
All six jurors were women; only one was of non-white or Hispanic origin. Thus Rose would suggest they reach a fair and reasonable verdict. Similarly other jurors also have personal commitments and experiences that make them more likely to react to the evidence in different ways and many discount the seriousness of their legal responsibilities.
Contrastingly, the defence counsel appears disinterested in their legal responsibilities.12 Angry Men is a American courtroom drama film adapted from a teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose. Written and co-produced by Rose himself and directed by Sidney Lumet, this trial film tells the story of a jury made up of 12 men as they deliberate the conviction or acquittal of a defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt, forcing the.
Simpson was guilty of murder — as most people believe, regardless of the jury’s verdict — then the kid in “12 Angry Men” was almost certainly guilty too. In the movie, 12 Angry Men, an 18 year old boy from a slum is charged with murder.
He is put on trial for being accused of stabbing his father in the chest with a knife. Some of the first ten amendments of the Bill of Rights are shown in this movie such as the fifth and sixth amendments. “Facts and fancy” by Dr Jennifer Minter (English Works articles) At the beginning of Reginald Rose’s play, Twelve Angry Men (), the judge states, “it now becomes your duty to try to separate the facts from the fancy”.
At stake is the fate of a year-old boy who is on trial for the murder of his father. “12 Angry Men” The movie “12 Angry Men” takes place in a room within a courthouse where 12 men that have been selected for jury duty. Henry Fonda's character slowly chips away at each jurors conviction until they all realise the case for was not made conclusively, so the boy should be found not guilty.
We can never actually judge guilt (and nor should we).Download