Verdict

The 1957 movie version of 12 angry men, brings twelve people together with different personalities and experiences to discuss the fate of a young boy that allegedly killed his father. At the very beginning many agree that the boy is guilty except for one man. Juror #8 votes not guilty and pushes to have the evidence talked through. Slowly after reviewing all the evidence carefully the eleven to one vote switched from eleven thinking guilty to eleven thinking not guilty. Each juror brought…

mountain air. She made the mistake of becoming addicted to morphine, but eventually made amends by dying clean. Juxtaposing, Juror 3 shows courage in the play 12 Angry Men when one by one the other jurors are swayed to vote innocent. He stands by his verdict and strongly defends himself. Even though he was unconsciously judges the defendant based on prior experiences with children, he still stands firm in his decision that the boy…

to include this aspect of the theory. Certainly, as time passed throughout the film, the moods of some of the jurors became more hostile. The jurors naturally became angrier since their demands were not met (not reaching an agreement on a guilty verdict and not reaching an agreement on becoming a hung jury). Power differences also did not seem to be a factor in this film. The judge is individual who would have the most power in this scenario. Since the judge is not in the room during…

The Verdict, starring Paul Newman, portrays legal ethics and justice in a troublesome yet intriguing light. This touching story had its complexities in various forms. There were ethical violations, laws broken and personal values being challenged. It shed light on how discrepancies in the healthcare system can cause a life, and how law in the justice system can easily work for you or against you. One can gain immense perspective after watching this film on how brutal and cutthroat the justice…

so there is no possible way she could identify someone. “It’s logical to say that she wasn’t wearing them while she was in bed, tossing and turning, trying to fall asleep"(Reginald Rose 129). In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose they decided the verdict of not guilty. The defendant was obviously innocent as shown by the knife, old man's story, and the woman's false eyesight. In no way has the defendant been proven guilty beyond a reasonable…

nineteen-year-old boy, who grew up in the slums, is guilty of stabbing his father in the chest with a switchblade knife. Throughout the play an onlooker can see juror nine change from being quiet and reserved into a bold speaker that is key in the outcome of the verdict. It is obvious that juror nine is quiet and reserved because he only speaks three times in the first act. Another point can be seen from the first few of his lines, where he states his wise opinions. Stage directions like…

the 8th juror leaving because he was the one who questioned the trial and without him the play wouldn’t go on. I really liked the play and how it played out. The story was really complex and did keep my on my toes because I wanted to see what the verdict was. The 8th juror really interested me because he did agree with the other jurors straight away. He didn’t think that the boy is not-guilty, but he wanted to know more. So instead of keeping his doubt inside he actually spoke out to the group…

In the movie 12 Angry Men (1957) many opinions, decision-making traps, and biases overshadowed the reality of the case at hand. With different personalities who have attitudes and stereotyping and implicit prejudice to a greater extent were to decide the fate of a young boy who was accused of murdering his father. I strongly believe as stated by Banaji, Bazerman, and Chugh, “[It] makes implicit prejudice so common and persistent is [because] it is rooted in the fundamental mechanics of thought.”…

brief summary of film (storyline) 12 jurors gather to determine the fate of a teenager on trial for murder in the first degree. A guilty verdict would result in the teen facing the death penalty. Sequestered in a room, the jurors find that they all vote guilty except for one juror, juror #8, who expects more deliberation over the case before delivering a guilty verdict. The other jurors put forth arguments supporting the conclusion that the boy is without a doubt guilty, but Juror #8 maintains…

have a responsibility. This is a remarkable thing about democracy. That we are … notified by mail to come down to this place - and decide on the guilt or innocence of a man; of a man we have not known before. We have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict. This is one of the reasons why we are strong. We should not make it a personal thing” (Rose 44). Wanting everyone to calm down and sit down, they all decide to try to be civil and do another vote. Juror 11 enjoys having evidence on the table,…