12 Angry Men Reflection

The film “12 angry men” takes place in a courthouse in New York City. There is a trial going on involving a boy that is being charged for murdering his father. His sentence if guilty is the electric chair. The only thing that is deciding his fate, is the jury 's verdict. Guilty or non-guilty? These twelve men of the jury will have to discuss and go over evidence to decide the boy 's fate. When the men sit down in the room it is very obvious that, most of the men do not want to be here. Also majority of the men think the boy is guilty, even without discussing the case. So they all take a vote on what the boys fate will be. Eleven of the jurors say death, but juror number eight votes not guilty. This is because he is not convinced of the boy …show more content…
Juror eight has very good observation skills. He almost is a detective juror, he seeks answers and he is good at creating scenarios to find answers. Juror eight gave his reason why he had doubt still, and why the other eleven should look the case over more. Juror eight then wanted to take another vote. He agreed that after his points, if no one else votes none-guilty that he will agree with a guilty verdict also. So they did a vote, but this vote was different it was a private vote. So the twelve men all casted in their votes. The foramen received the votes and open each on eagerly to see what the vote was. There was one more not-guilty vote. juror three after find this out gives juror five criticism, because he thinks that juror five’s vote was the not-guilty, and that he voted not guilty just because juror five grew up in the slums and felt bad for the boy. The viewers then find out that it was not juror number five who voted not guilty, it was juror number nine who voted guilty. He feels that juror eight’s point deserve to be discussed and gone over before they reach their “realist …show more content…
Juror eight then states that you have a hard time answering questions when in emotional distress. juror eight, then test juror four and ask him questions, like the boy would of had to answer. After the test juror two makes a good point using his great observational skills, He states that the stab wound on the dad was down word, the boy was at least five inches shorter, why would he stab down? Then juror five tells the jurors that when using a switch blade properly, you are not able to stab downward. He knows this from his previous slum life, where he saw knife fights almost