Twelve Angry Men Analysis
Twelve Angry Men (1957), is the gripping, penetrating, and engrossing examination of a diverse group of twelve jurors. They retire to a jury room to do their civic duty and serve up a just verdict for the indigent minority defendant whose life is in the balance. The film is a powerful indictment, denouncement and expose of the trial by jury system. Many of the jurors had stereotypes about kids who grow up in run down neighborhoods and who belong to certain minority groups. Not only did these stereotypes influence the jurors’ tend to form internal attributions for the boy’s behavior, but these stereotypes also led to biased interpretations of the evidence.
The jury of twelve 'angry men,' entrusted with the power to send an uneducated, …show more content…
Discussions, insults and outbursts fill the jury room. The defendant, when we glimpse him, looks ethnic but of no specific group. His eyes are ringed with dark circles, and he looks exhausted and frightened. In the jury room, some jurors make veiled references to "these people." Finally Juror number ten begins a racist rant. Juror number seven stubbornly states that the defendant's background doomed him to lead a criminal life, "It's all been said. We could talk here forever, it's still the same thing. This kid is five for zero. Well, look at his record. When he was ten, he was in children's court. He threw a rock at a teacher. When he was fifteen, he was in reform school. He stole a car. He's been arrested for mugging. They say he's real handy with a knife." Juror number four refers to a study about how slum conditions breed criminals: "This boy...a product of a broken home and a filthy neighborhood. The jury situation portrayed in Twelve Angry Men had a lot of evidence that would normally lead to a groupthink circumstance. The relationship among the
Twelve Angry Men (1957), is the gripping, penetrating, and engrossing examination of a diverse group of twelve jurors. They retire to a jury room to do their civic duty and serve up a just verdict for the indigent minority defendant whose life is in the balance. The film is a powerful indictment, denouncement and expose of the trial by jury system. Many of the jurors had stereotypes about kids who grow up in run down neighborhoods and who belong to certain minority groups. Not only did these stereotypes influence the jurors’ tend to form internal attributions for the boy’s behavior, but these stereotypes also led to biased interpretations of the evidence.
The jury of twelve 'angry men,' entrusted with the power to send an uneducated, …show more content…
Discussions, insults and outbursts fill the jury room. The defendant, when we glimpse him, looks ethnic but of no specific group. His eyes are ringed with dark circles, and he looks exhausted and frightened. In the jury room, some jurors make veiled references to "these people." Finally Juror number ten begins a racist rant. Juror number seven stubbornly states that the defendant's background doomed him to lead a criminal life, "It's all been said. We could talk here forever, it's still the same thing. This kid is five for zero. Well, look at his record. When he was ten, he was in children's court. He threw a rock at a teacher. When he was fifteen, he was in reform school. He stole a car. He's been arrested for mugging. They say he's real handy with a knife." Juror number four refers to a study about how slum conditions breed criminals: "This boy...a product of a broken home and a filthy neighborhood. The jury situation portrayed in Twelve Angry Men had a lot of evidence that would normally lead to a groupthink circumstance. The relationship among the