Are Men Guilty In 12 Angry Men
Twelve men meet in one room to discuss whether an eighteen-year-old boy is responsible for his father’s death. An initial vote was cast, where eleven men voted guilty and one juror voted not guilty. Ultimately, the jury decided that he was not guilty after deliberations.
The twelve-person jury must decide if the boy is guilty or is there reasonable doubt to believe that he is not guilty. The jury must vote on guilty or not guilty. If there are disagreements, the jury must debate until they reach to a consensus.
Juror ten was a cold and racist man, who was vehemently against those who were from the slum. The comments that were made by juror ten made juror five and everyone else uncomfortable. The group of men decided to reject the racist behavior by standing up and turning their backs against juror ten.
Juror three had an …show more content…
He was not swayed by emotions and believed firmly on the evidence presented. The testimony of the woman across the street who claimed to see the boy stab his father was enough evidence for him. Juror nine and eight questioned the woman’s ability to identify the boy in the dark without glasses. Juror four finally no longer had any evidence to believe in. Unlike the others on the guilty team, who were fueled by emotions, he was fueled by facts. As one of the second to last juror to switch his vote, his vote confirmed that there was reasonable doubt.
The Jury Foreman exercised his formal authority in the beginning by telling everyone to settle down and begin the process. He was very accommodating to the group and asked them what they preferred to do instead of explicitly telling them what to do. Never had he led the conversation or attempted to take control. However, when others questioned his authority, his authority slipped even further. The foreman voluntarily gave up his position and offered others his seat. He demonstrated that he never had effectively used his authority to keep the jurors in
The twelve-person jury must decide if the boy is guilty or is there reasonable doubt to believe that he is not guilty. The jury must vote on guilty or not guilty. If there are disagreements, the jury must debate until they reach to a consensus.
Juror ten was a cold and racist man, who was vehemently against those who were from the slum. The comments that were made by juror ten made juror five and everyone else uncomfortable. The group of men decided to reject the racist behavior by standing up and turning their backs against juror ten.
Juror three had an …show more content…
He was not swayed by emotions and believed firmly on the evidence presented. The testimony of the woman across the street who claimed to see the boy stab his father was enough evidence for him. Juror nine and eight questioned the woman’s ability to identify the boy in the dark without glasses. Juror four finally no longer had any evidence to believe in. Unlike the others on the guilty team, who were fueled by emotions, he was fueled by facts. As one of the second to last juror to switch his vote, his vote confirmed that there was reasonable doubt.
The Jury Foreman exercised his formal authority in the beginning by telling everyone to settle down and begin the process. He was very accommodating to the group and asked them what they preferred to do instead of explicitly telling them what to do. Never had he led the conversation or attempted to take control. However, when others questioned his authority, his authority slipped even further. The foreman voluntarily gave up his position and offered others his seat. He demonstrated that he never had effectively used his authority to keep the jurors in