Essay about 12 Angry Men Literary Analysis

He disproved this with the help of all of the jurors as they all agreed that the El train would take at least 10 seconds to pass any given point meaning that the El train would have made too much noise for the old man to hear anything. Finally, he demonstrated that it was impossible for the old man to walk to the door as the old man had a stroke that significantly hinders his movement. He demonstrated this by walking 55 feet in the jury room while dragging his leg on the floor to replicate the old man. While going as fast as he could he walk 55 feet in exactly 41 seconds which is 26 seconds more than the old man claimed (Lumet, 1957).

If I we on the jury, I would have voted guilty at first. But as time went on, and the events happened as they did, I would have changed my vote sometime after seeing that it would have taken the old man a total of 41 seconds to get to the door.

His prejudice caused conflict with all of the other jury members and after some time he too changed his vote to not guilty. The stock broker with the glasses was the eleventh juror to vote not guilty. He was the fourth juror and self assured that his decision was correct and that the defendant had murdered his father. He was involved in simple conflict with the rest of the jurors.

The old man gave evidence that he heard the boy say “I’ll kill you” from his apartment below and that he saw the boy running from the down the stairs from the apartment after rising from his bedroom. The old lady saw the boy kill his father through her window, whilst a train was passing. Juror #8 analyses each of these points and makes credible arguments that the conclusion is flawed based on incorrect reasoning, by pointing out inconsistencies in the conclusions reached. The other jurors are content to believe that their reasoning is solid, as they have used examples of deductive reasoning to reach their conclusion. Juror #3 gives his reasons for reaching the conclusion that “It’s quite clear that the boy never went to the movies that night, returned home and killed his father with the knife as identified in Court” (Fonda & Lumet, 1957). Until Juror #8 takes out a similar knife and poses the question that it was possible that another knife was used, Juror #7 calls it a million to one however Juror #8 persists in saying it was possible. He also uses this analysis method to cast aspersions on the second point and third points raised by systematically analyzing each component.

In 12 Angry Men, Juror #8 tries to convince the other jurors that the defendant of the case, an 18 year old boy accused of stabbing his father to death, is not guilty based on a reasonable doubt. Throughout the film Juror #8 goes over the facts and details of the case to point out the flaws in the evidence in order to prove there is, in fact, a reasonable doubt. The film depicts the struggles of the underdog and going against the majority in order to stand up for what is right. In one scene, the piece of evidence being put into question is a testimony from an elderly man who lived below the boy and his father and claimed he heard the murder happen and saw the boy leave the apartment after it happened. It is being put into question whether the elderly man who walked with a limp could make it to his doorway in order to witness the boy running away from the crime in fifteen seconds.

Whilst the rest of the play is rather static, the scene re-enacting the old man’s testimony is the only instance of thorough physicality throughout. Though the man stated it took him 15 seconds to reach the hall way, juror proves otherwise, portraying the man’s movements and covering the same distance in 42 seconds. Juror 9, being an elder himself, understood this false testimony to be a result of his self-worth, as “[it’s] a very sad thing, to be nothing”. “Nobody knows him” and “nobody quotes him”; “a man like this needs to be recognised”. This, along with the female eye witness who “honestly thought [she] saw the boy kill his father”, though is assumed to have “saw only a blur”, since she was not wearing her glasses, is just two examples of how various factors can influence an eye witness’s testimony and invalidate

Juror #8 is a calm and reasonable man which makes it easier for him to judge the case fairly and justly without any prejudice. Juror #8 never said he believed the defendant to be innocent he only wanted to take the role of being a juror seriously and talk about the case before a young boy is sent off to die. “I’m not trying to change your mind it’s just that we’re talking about somebody’s life here… we can’t decide in five minutes.” Because he brings no prejudice in the jury room he is able to look at the facts and carefully decide on his judgement. Juror #8 recognizes other peoples prejudice and tries not to convince them that the boy is innocent but to have them let go of that prejudice and decide based on the facts whether they truly believe the defendant is guilty or not. Rose uses both juror

The murder weapon was supposedly a one-of-a-kind knife, but Juror 8 had the same knife in his pocket that he picked up at a pawn shop a few blocks away from the boy’s house. Even though buying and selling switchblades was illegal. Also, Juror 8 held a vote where if everyone voted guilty, Juror 8 would change his vote and send it into the judge. While Juror 9 was the one to change his vote and allow the talk to continue, it never would’ve happened if not for Juror 8. Lastly, Juror 8 took a risk by trying to put together all the witnesses’ testimony. He guessed at how long an el train took to pass a point and then put with the unlikelihood of the man hearing “I’m going to kill you.” All these claims could’ve meant a guilty verdict if not for Juror

Juror Eight kept in his mind that he needs to have evidence and think about the evidences critically and proof to other jurors that the possibility of the defendant being guilty could be less than what they think. He did not get personal about the case and stood up by himself ignoring other ways of thinking. This shows how Juror Eight was very patient even though at the beginning of the play he was all by himself. At the end, he was successful in convincing the other jurors because he understood the background and the personality of each juror as the time passed. This quote signals Juror Eight’s determination and patience to examine all the evidence and make sure the evident character of the defendant’s murder. The honest and simply request encourages a great deal of powerful tension among the jurors, many of whom are given to conflicting views.

The scene showed everyone on how it would take the man much longer to reach the door. Having Juror Eight says his evidence confidently also showed the other Jurors that they should be confident enough to say with their own opinion. And with standing with their own opinion they influence others to do the same.

He doesn’t believe the boy, yet believes the woman. Showing equality can’t be achieved. Then, there is a lot of information given throughout the trial that links the boy to the murder. However, when the jurors go in for deliberation, Juror Eight starts out and is the only one that says not guilty. He just wants to talk about it a little longer because this is a case that will kill the boy if he is convicted. He continuously takes out evidence and testimony including: the use of the knife; the old man’s testimony; the woman’s testimony; his whereabouts; and that the knife is one-of-a-kind (Rose 23-62). That is just a little bit of what is done. There are a lot of things here that show how there is not equality in the courtroom. The main point is that Juror Eight spent so much time investigating the facts of the case, instead of only listening to the prosecution and the defense. He went out of his way to try and prove the boy not guilty. This shows how he tried to make it two against one for the defense. He was only for getting the boy off instead of looking at both sides of the case. He deliberately went through all of the facts like a defense attorney. He thought that he needed to give the boy more help, effectively giving him two different lawyers looking at two totally different things. This shows how you can’t be equal in a courtroom, because

In the play Twelve Angry Men, Juror number 8’s role is to try and decide whether a 16 year old teenager is guilty or not of killing his father. He is especially important to the play because he votes not guilty because he had a reasonable doubt, and that meant that he would have to use tiny clues and facts to see if the boy was in fact guilty.

The critical turning points in the jury votes occur, not when there is passion and anger, but when there is reasoned discussion, as the rational Juror 8 triumphs over the prejudices of his fellow jurors. The facts of the case do not change, but the jurors come to see the facts differently, and change by the process they go through. Despite the hostility and tension created in this process, the twelve men end up reconciled, and justice is done.

Upon the opening discussion, the jurors refer to a primary source of evidence, the murder weapon, which coincidentally was the same model switch knife purchased by the defendant earlier that evening. Due to this evidence, Juror No. 4 jumps to the conclusion, “You know what exactly happened. The boy took the knife

According the five Methods for Influencing Other Group Members - use of reason, assertiveness, coalition building, higher values, and bargaining - when Juror Eight said: “we are talking about somebody life here, we can’t just decide within five minutes, suppose we are wrong”, he used the youth human-being life’s important and the danger of a false decision as good reasons to force other jurors in analyzing the facts carefully. He then talks about the boy’s backgrounds for appealing to logic and rational thinking of other jurors. Juror Three was overt prejudice, hostility, and used “assertiveness” to influence the other ten jurors of jury provided an antagonist for juror Eight. Juror eight used “coalition building” method to seek alignment with other group members. He never says that he believes the defendant is innocent but his mantra throughout the movie was “it’s possible!” referring to the reasonable doubt, which he convinced others’ thought. Juror Eight continued to appeal other eleven juror’s higher values by repeatedly reinforcing their moral and judicial obligation to convict only if there was no reasonable doubt. He challenged each juror to look at the facts more thoughtfully. “Bargaining” is offering an instrument exchange. Juror 8 used this method when he said: “I want to call for another vote… If there are 11 votes for guilty, I won’t stand alone… But if anyone votes not guilty, we stay here and talk it out.”