The unlocking of the door and the knife in the table which was critical to the fact-finding process suggest that prejudice has been dispelled. Perhaps he can imagine how it would feel to be in that position, whereas the others can not. In this regard, the role of the 8 th juror, who believes the boy deserves the courtesy of talking about the evidence before arriving at hasty assumptions, is critical to the exposure of injustices and prejudices. Hence, owing to preconceived biases, jurors are too quick to arrive at hasty conclusions and are less willing to accept the apparent doubt in the circumstantial evidence. They strongly believed that their arguments were accurate and that the accused was guilty. Rose sets up the 8 th juror as a contrasting voice of dissent in order to expose the extent to which the other jurors are controlled by their preconceived notions of guilt and innocence. The locked room appears as a metaphoric representation of their locked minds and their prejudice, which may lead to a miscarriage of justice. Illusions to his animosity toward youth were made when he says 12 angry men juror 8 essay that kids today have no respect and that he has not seen his son in over a decade.
Michel de Montaigne - Wikipedia
Thus Rose would suggest they reach a fair and reasonable verdict. Therefore, when groups want to achieve a quick decision, they make riskier decisions than individuals. In the beginning of the movie, some of the jurors were disinterested, some wanted to take a quick decision and get out while some were really into the case. For careful deliberation, a group should consist of even members so as to be more effective. Similarly, the 6th juror comments, Theres not a doubt in the world. How is he able to use this determination to save a life that the eleven other jurors are ready to discard? They were not sure how they were expected to behave or relate 12 angry men juror 8 essay their arguments with that of others. Indeed, in an act of social harmony, the 8 th Juror s gesture of helping the 3rd Juror with his coat demonstrates the potential for fractured sides to find consensus in a society attempting to find her identity. One is too rigid to change and the other wants to go to his baseball match and doesnt bother what becomes of the accused. Juror #1 can be considered a leader as he was the one who organised the seating arrangements of the jurors and he took care of the papers on which the votes of the individual jurors were written. The gradual self-awareness and enlightenment of many of the jurors helps the collective team more effectively scrutinise the evidence. This is one such movie which shows how group dynamics can actually lead to success or failures. However, owing to the integrity and perspicacity of the 8 th juror and his insistence the principles of justice and reasonable doubt, he orchestrates a careful examination of the circumstantial evidence.
Being collected polished and rational were all advantages. Rose depicts a judicial system that is essentially flawed because of its dependence upon twelve angry, caucasian men who possess different views, personalities and personal agendas. Only when the safeguards of democracy are consciously followed, can any reward be in sight. The painters experience of apartments near an el-train also reveal the difficulty a witness would have hearing the boy. He said he had a reasonable doubt and that he wanted to hear more arguments regarding the case. Afterwards, the 4th juror, one of the most logical and methodical jurors, (Lets stick to the facts.) eventually votes not guilty stating he now has a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, Rose uses the harsh white light as a device to reveal the men s limitations, confirming that the process contributes to greater self-awareness. The members basically dont know what is expected of them. Initially, as the jurors respond to the task of judging the guilt or innocence of the 16 year old boy, charged with first degree murder of his father, shortcomings are flagrantly obvious. Rose demonstrates this though the jury, a microcosm representation of a cross-section of America, who works together to form a just, unanimous decision. Taking the above example of Juror #3, as time went on he became more and more passionate exploding in disbelieving anger and it seemed somehow he was personally involved with the case.
Montaigne 2, Sample of Essays EduCheer!
But he did not direct the members or guided them in any sort of 12 angry men juror 8 essay way. The strengths of the system because of the emphasis on the safeguards of justice. The first half of the movie is based on cohesiveness because each juror except the juror # 8 voted the man guilty. The task assigned to the group is completed and the group members can say their goodbyes. Nobody is actually bothered to think what their decision means for the individual.
How the person perceives his 12 angry men juror 8 essay role depends on his background, past experiences, etc and on the basis of that he decides how he should behave. (ii) Perceived The perceived role of individuals differs. 2) Roles Every individual plays many roles. In an era which was plagued by Cold war mentalities of relentless suspicion, Rose acknowledges that the jury system is inherently flawed. Specifically, and through the use of a real-time deliberation process, the playwright emphasizes how the integrity of the judicial system is undermined when the jurors arrive at the table clothed in their own personal experiences and prejudices. Likewise, the mindless whistling of the 7th juror and the change of his vote to not guilty because he has had enough highlights his obvious apathy. Through his play, Twelve, angry, men, Reginald Rose suggest that the judicial system has more strengths than it does flaws. Since no individual is completely accountable for the decision, members will have a tendency to accept more extreme solutions. The audience are thus taken into the customary black box scenario and witness the difficulties faced by the twelve individuals when attempting to follow the judges instruction to deliberate honestly and thoughtfully as prejudice and experiences cloud their judgements. Whether they brought good or bad qualities to the jury room, they all affected the outcome. The power of the process lies within its ability to expose their personal prejudice in a locked room, where the men cannot escape scrutiny.
Essay topics: Many cities suffer from traffic -related problems
12, angry, men is a classic movie which was released in 1957. Juror 4 initially votes guilty, he is able to admit his 12 angry men juror 8 essay fault and change his vote. 3) Polarization When these men first took turns explaining their position, a polarization effect occurred; they gained and added confidence in their position due to strength in numbers and the full range of supportive evidence that comes from collective expression. The ideal size of any group is 5-7 members. Forces the other jurors to carefully consider witness testimonies. Although 4 initially votes guilty, he is able to admit his fault and change his vote. From the beginning, the 12th.
The jurors are all different individuals and its clear that their opinions and perceptions regarding the case will be different, as each juror observed the case with a distinct perspective. With an emphasis on reasonable doubt, the trial changes direction and the flaws in the evidence become increasingly apparent, making it difficult for many jurors to insist on the boys guilt. Throughout the play, there are repetitive references to the knife, which will be critical to the evidence, but in this case the stab wounds symbolically refer to the 3rd juror s raw and personal emotions. Juror, whose broken relationship with his son, influences his decision. They went through the evidences once again and new observations were made which explained the case better. The storm and the flickering of harsh white light could be interpreted as symbols of reality and truth. The vote which was to 11 to 1 in the beginning was 12 to 0 by the end. The notion that there are no secrets in a jury room holds its ground to both ensure that all voices are heard but also that extreme views are unveiled. It is assumed that not every juror believed that the man was guilty; there were some who just raised their hand because majority jurors raised their hands voting the accused guilty. The 3rd juror, who says, The mans a dangerous killer and the 10th, who remarks You know what youre dealing with may be the most vociferous in their accusations of the boys guilt and it is this emphasis on guilt that threatens a fair trial. As Rose clearly shows, honouring these safeguards not only empowers individuals to engage in the judicial process, but acts as the basis for a just verdict which reflects a decent, caring democratic society; diversity may hinder, but in this case it can facilitate also justice.
The deconstruction of these obstacles finally paves 12 angry men juror 8 essay the way for an honest and just outcome. He analysed each piece of evidence with care and used logic and his skills of deduction to guide his vote. All other members of the jury are prepared to convict the man, and they grow increasingly angry at his refusal to agree with the unanimous verdict needed for a conviction. Critical to the not guilty verdict is the capitulation of the 10th and 3rd jurors owing to their vociferous opposition. Many people would far more easily convince themselves to make the evidence fit the crime, rather than examining the evidence to see how it stands. Discuss Set in 1950s New York with a backdrop of post McCarthyism hysteria, Reginald Roses Twelve Angry Men explores the deliberations of a jury in a homicide trial. He is probably the most complex personality in the film.
How To Write An Argumentative Essay On A Scientific Topic
The best example here could be of 12 angry men juror 8 essay Juror #3. In his opinion, the young man is innocent and should not be sacrificed for expediency. He is also able to question where the others are easily convinced by the evidence. The most important trait in helping groups to move on to the next stage seems to be the ability to listen. When Juror # 8 hypothesized new ways of looking at the facts, the other jurors illustrated their disinterest by playing side games, interrupting him, and shouting Why is this important?! Rose intended for the audience to realise that the not guilty vote was the right choice and used. He starts off like a pleasant self-made successful businessman. At the outset, without even discussing a single shred of the evidence presented at the trial, 11 members vote the accused as guilty and try to leave the room. In the stage directions he notes how he is reeling from the pain of being stabbed in the chest which foreshadows his revenge agenda and his rigid, patriarchal view of parenting. This essay only features my own material and any infomation is gathered from both the book and the. Individual members have become self-assuring, and the need for group approval is past. Another shortcoming is the legal competence of the jurors, many of whom lack the aptitude to carry out their duties because they have a distorted or deficient understanding of their legal duties. Whilst Rose suggests that the judicial system has its imperfections, he also endorses the benefits he claims are invaluable to society.
Master of Business Administration (MBA) CBU
They are born, grown, developed and 12 angry men juror 8 essay often die. Juror 4 never discredits or implies anything towards the defendant and is always careful of what he says. Whats more, he maintains this position even though it angers his fellows, whereas a weaker man would give in for the sake of the common good or in order to bring the matter to a swift conclusion and. 2) Risky Shifts Since it takes a longer time to communicate and reach a consensus in a group, decision making in a group is time-consuming. Men were unique and carefully constructed, Juror 4 stands out from the rest for several reasons.