Topic(1). ‘Twelve Angry Men shows that prejudice is a factor in every conflict.’ Discuss.
Twelve the Angry Man is a very interesting play. As the evidence is raised by the jurors themselves to this question. The complexity of the case grew with the development of the film. Then this play came to a difficult part which the jurors should make a decision, guilty or innocent. Especially when you have a juror’s prejudice that affects the shadow of their decision. Only when prejudice is put aside, jurors can make a more logical decision on the case. As the film continued, all twelve jurors slowly arrived in the room. They sat down according to the number of the jurors, and began to discuss the case. The foreman then examines the case. You know that …show more content…
The juror #3 and his son ever had an argument that made his son run away. When his son came back to apologize, the juror #3, hit him for leaving the first time and that caused him to escape once more. He had not seen his son for two years, and it was a bit of a pain in his heart. His anger on his ungrateful son was projected onto the young man who was on trial. Juror #3 does not care about the life of the defendant. He made it clear that he was an executioner, and he said he would turn on the boy’s switch himself. His personal trouble has been imposed on his ability to adjudicate. In the film, he illustrates the hidden anger and resentment to cover up the …show more content…
It is clear that most of the battles of the juror #8 are prejudiced by other jurors. Instead of fact based and logical decisions, everyone is governed by majority rule, and no idea what consequences may happen to boys. This is a life in prison or death. These questions are dealt with and challenged by the jury #8, rather than with the crowd and accepting the evidence, and when it is put forward, he challenges everything. Now that the boy is executed, if he is convicted, his life is in the hands of jurors and jurors #8, on the grounds that they can at least talk about whether the boy is guilty. Juror #8 was the most compassionate and bravest for me. He insisted on his beliefs and evidence, and everyone was rude to him and tried to prove that he was wrong. He thinks the boy is innocent, he has given evidence, “El needs ten-seconds to pass a given point or two-seconds per car. According to the woman, El had been walking in front of the old man’s window for at least six-seconds before the body fell, and perhaps more. The old man had to hear the boy say, “I’m going to kill you,” roaring over his nose in front of El. It’s impossible, he can hear it. “But no one believes him. He doesn’t care about other men’s opinion, he just wants to make sure that the little boy is not accused of killing his father, if that was not true.Juror #8 is a brave and compassionate man, he did not go alone with the crowed and accept the
Twelve the Angry Man is a very interesting play. As the evidence is raised by the jurors themselves to this question. The complexity of the case grew with the development of the film. Then this play came to a difficult part which the jurors should make a decision, guilty or innocent. Especially when you have a juror’s prejudice that affects the shadow of their decision. Only when prejudice is put aside, jurors can make a more logical decision on the case. As the film continued, all twelve jurors slowly arrived in the room. They sat down according to the number of the jurors, and began to discuss the case. The foreman then examines the case. You know that …show more content…
The juror #3 and his son ever had an argument that made his son run away. When his son came back to apologize, the juror #3, hit him for leaving the first time and that caused him to escape once more. He had not seen his son for two years, and it was a bit of a pain in his heart. His anger on his ungrateful son was projected onto the young man who was on trial. Juror #3 does not care about the life of the defendant. He made it clear that he was an executioner, and he said he would turn on the boy’s switch himself. His personal trouble has been imposed on his ability to adjudicate. In the film, he illustrates the hidden anger and resentment to cover up the …show more content…
It is clear that most of the battles of the juror #8 are prejudiced by other jurors. Instead of fact based and logical decisions, everyone is governed by majority rule, and no idea what consequences may happen to boys. This is a life in prison or death. These questions are dealt with and challenged by the jury #8, rather than with the crowd and accepting the evidence, and when it is put forward, he challenges everything. Now that the boy is executed, if he is convicted, his life is in the hands of jurors and jurors #8, on the grounds that they can at least talk about whether the boy is guilty. Juror #8 was the most compassionate and bravest for me. He insisted on his beliefs and evidence, and everyone was rude to him and tried to prove that he was wrong. He thinks the boy is innocent, he has given evidence, “El needs ten-seconds to pass a given point or two-seconds per car. According to the woman, El had been walking in front of the old man’s window for at least six-seconds before the body fell, and perhaps more. The old man had to hear the boy say, “I’m going to kill you,” roaring over his nose in front of El. It’s impossible, he can hear it. “But no one believes him. He doesn’t care about other men’s opinion, he just wants to make sure that the little boy is not accused of killing his father, if that was not true.Juror #8 is a brave and compassionate man, he did not go alone with the crowed and accept the