Essay Twelve Angry Men

Submitted By mrscoosy
Words: 1325
Pages: 6

Twelve Angry Men is a movie that was made in 1957 by Reginald Rose based on actual life occurrences of a juror. The movie is about a New York jury that was deliberating after the trial of an 18-year-old Puerto Rican teenager that was accused with murder for stabbing his day to death. If the young man is convicted he could face the death penalty or the electric chair. This play also concerns twelve jurors reaching to the same decision and dealing with multiple different individuals that make up a jury can affect the verdict. It was eleven to one in favor of guilty. The movie is an older black and white which I thought would be completely boring but somehow was very entertaining and interesting with a hint of comedy. This films shows how one person can change the minds of an entire crowd. One of the jurors stood up for what he believed. The play showed how one man didn’t give up in what he believed to be true. The play also showed a powerful leader who fought till the end for fairness. He felt the evidence wasn’t strong enough against the young man to convict him of murder. However this juror wasn’t like the rest of the jury. He stood out as a leader. What made a good leader was the way he handled himself when the other eleven jurors were against him. He didn’t give up until the other jurors changed their mind about the verdict. He didn’t let any of his emotions get out of hand. He was calm and easy going didn’t get into any arguments with the other jurors.
In this group of a dozen jurors you have very different personalities and also you have some men that want to be leaders and some that do not. Also the movie demonstrates that actions and behaviors of the twelve jurors. This is an example of small group communications. We see different views, different opinions of men such as altruism, egoism, good and evil. It is no doubt that human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics.
In all criminal cases presented in the courts of the United States, a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The law requires the jury to release the defendant unless it is fully convinced of the defendant's guilt. Many times it may be difficult for a jury to come to such a significant conclusion. This is clearly evident in the movie. It's very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth.' This movie was about a young delinquent on trial for the murder of his abusive father. The jury must find him guilty if there is no reasonable doubt, and in turn, sentence him to death. People's bias and predispositions can affect their opinion of different circumstances and different people. This is very evident throughout the movie with the first vote was 11 to 1(guilty), the second was 9 to two, third revote was 8 to four, the fourth was six to six, fifth was 9 to three and sixth votes was eleven to one(innocent). As time when on and re-evaluating the case and circumstances you can see the change in opinion between these men. It is there that the jurors' personal prejudices come out and we the readers/viewers are able to see how this has influenced and shaped what they think and how Henry Fonda was able to shift the opinion of all of the men without any physical conflict. There was however a lot of bickering and disagreements but ultimately in the end everyone was able to come together on the same page to make a more accurate decision rather than acting on emotions and their prejudices.
Henry Fonda is the juror that stands out among the rest of the 11 other men. The jurors are convinced of the young man’s guilt, all except Fonda’s character, who seeks to prevent a rush to judgment. He questions the competence of the defense attorney despite a preponderance of evidence that points toward guilt – a shaky alibi; two eyewitnesses, including one who said he heard the defendant threaten to kill his father; and testimony identifying