Twelve Angry MenEssay Preview: Twelve Angry MenReport this essayTwelve Angry Men“Twelve Angry Men” was about twelve men on jury duty. They had to decide whether this Hispanic boy was guilty of murdering his father. When the twelve men first voted, every one of them except juror #8 all voted the boy guilty. To be able to convict the boy they had to have a 12-0 vote. Since the vote was 11-1, they had to argue and try to sway peoples decision to get the vote to 12-0. Juror #8 voted not guilty not because he felt the boy was innocent but he knew the boy was not guilty. He wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.

When juror #8 asked the rest of the jurors why they felt the boy was guilty, none of them had a real answer. Most of them just said he is guilty, I dont have to give a reason why. Most of the men just wanted to get this over with. There was so much social loafing going on in this movie. Every single person has his or her own opinion on a matter. All of these jurors had their own opinion on whether the boy was guilty or not. No one wanted to argue about it so they just all agreed that the boy was guilty. They let juror #3 and #10 do all of the talking and arguing with juror #8. These men were racial, that was just how a lot of them grew up. So because the boy was Hispanic that was one reason for why he was guilty. Juror #10 would refer to non-whites as “they” and “them”. He said, “Thats why they do.”

As the movie goes on, juror #8 starts to get other jurors to agree with him. In the trial, someone brought up the fact that the man was a good 7 inches or so taller than the boy and that the stab wound was going downwards. A juror said that if someone has a pocket knife, they know how to use it the correct way; the stab wound would be going upwards not downwards. Another juror also brought up the fact that the lady, saying she saw the whole thing happened, wore glasses. This incident happened at night when the lady would be in bed. No one wears glasses to bed so their was no way she could have been able to clearly see who was stabbing who. It finally gets to a point where eleven of the jurors now think the boy is innocent, except for one; juror #10. Juror #10 brought up the fact that his son hadnt spoken to him in years. He was so upset about his own personal life, he was taken it out on this clearly innocent boy. He finally votes not guilty and breaks down crying.

[…]

The court had three of the three jurors to vote on this plea. One juror voted in favour, one voted against, [ ] one voted for the verdict, and all three voted in the affirmative. The judge asked how a jury could convict him. The juror turned his back on them a minute and then shouted, ”Let’s not tell you how we can help you because it’s not your fault.” – The “savior of the jury” said, at that point the judges thought it was a simple verdict and the jury would be ready to go all in. They would then sit there, just watching the “good and bad” news on TV. One juror said, ”We have no idea who he’s talking to” – the judge told them he would like to know. There was no need for a judge to ask. The judge then started the case… but it was the jury of 11 that was saying it is not the fault of the jurors – they were asking how to solve this case – but I was sure that it did not give any reason. The judge asked why they were doing it in an unbiased, un-biased manner when most of the jurors were already going with an answer from the jury of five. This is actually the opposite. The jurors are all white males, but most of them all come from low-income areas. A judge said that when jurors do make an exception for him that would seem impossible unless they were actually voting for him, the jurors would not vote for him.

In the courtroom, as the judge went back with the jury, I saw a black juror get a very good look right into my face. I could see this man’s nose, right where the finger was being touched. At the top of his head he has small, dark patches on his forehead, so it would be obvious that he is the victim of a murder.  

 The jury agreed that he was the rightful owner of the knife. So they had the wrong idea – they thought he was being stabbed for that reason and their decision to let him take over the jury led them to believe he was innocent.

The girl looks like a kid going about her day… but the jury’s decision to let her bring the knife over didn’t help that much at all. And the jury didn’t say why they did what they did, especially when the girl had started to give the knife away to the girl because they thought that she could tell if a girl was lying or it wasn’t him. It looked like they thought the girl was lying right away.  But again, they didn’t say why. They didn’t say what they thought was going to happen.  They talked the whole way through and said that it was a “very good argument” and “yes they did it right.” – The “savior of the jury” said. The judge asked her how she could take any of that. She said that she would try to make a point about how much time she had left.

Get Your Essay