12 Angry Men Questions Essay Essay
1. Make you believe that the jury in this film came to the right determination? Why/why non?
I think that the jury in this film came to the incorrect determination. because I feel that all throughout the deliberation the factual grounds did non hold any sensible uncertainty lingering above it. which was the complete antonym of the sentiment of juryman 8. and bit by bit everyone else. While there was factual grounds presented. juryman 8 persuaded all the remainder of the jurymans at the terminal to ignore the forensics. and to infer their ain theories. by blatantly saying “what if” inquiries carrying all jurymans to a consentaneous determination.
2. Make your sentiment of the instance alteration as the film progressed. or did it remain the same throughout the full film? Explain.
My sentiment of the instance changed as the film progressed. and did non remain the same throughout the full film. In the beginning I felt that the teenage male child was guilty and that the facts were excessively apparent and clear. but easy I was so fascinated by juryman 8’s logic and his thought ability. it got me interested and swayed my ballot for “not guilty” I besides believed what juryman 8 was stating by his tone of voice. which was clear and rhetorical. He showed the panel a unsmooth estimation on how long it would take for the male parent to acquire stabbed. walk with a hitch. and still name for aid.
3. Juror 8 made the statement. “Prejudice obscures the truth. ” Which character ( s ) based their determinations on bias? Explain. Juror 10 is one of the most racist and bias of the all the jurymans a quotation mark to demo this is “Now you’re non traveling to state us that we’re supposed to believe that child. cognizing what he is. Listen. I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say. I mean. they’re born prevaricators. ” When he says this he means/believes that people are born in slums are born to populate lives of offense and disseat. even thou juryman 5 was born and lived in a slum all his life he is a absolutely respectable adult male. This proves that juryman 10 was incorrect and people born in slums aren’t born to lie and perpetrate offense.
4. Why do you believe Juror 3 held out so long before altering his head at the terminal?
Juror 3 is the last to alter his head because of his score against childs ; this score between him and his boy had stemmed from a battle and instantly his boy left place and has ne’er seen him in more than two old ages. Ever since that incident juryman 3 has had a personal disfavor against childs which is apparent when juryman 3 says “‘that goddamn rotten child. I know him. what they’re like. What they do to you. How they kill you every twenty-four hours. My God. don’t you see? How come I’m the lone 1 who sees? Jeez. I can experience that knife traveling in. ’” This proves that juryman 3 thinks he knows every child in the whole universe and knows that they are disrespectful and ungrateful. But by the terminal of deliberation when he was the lone adult male voting guilty. he was overwhelmed with force per unit area by the jurymans and his bottled feelings for his boy that immediately come out. recognizing that he can non handle the teenage male child like his boy. and therefore handle him reasonably.
5. Make this film provide an accurate word picture of jury deliberation? Explain. The deliberation was for pure amusement but besides great playing was presented by the jurymans as they showed the ambiance in a deliberation room. as the testimony of many jurymans in existent life explain that they are really dying to go forth and would wish to rapidly travel place. who may listen to a instance for yearss. Such jurymans like juryman three took notes and noted grounds and factual information. though it is really uncommon for jurymans to take notes. it is legal and shows that some can retrieve while other are better to compose things down. But one scene that rang an dismay for me is when juryman 8 brought out the similar knife used in the offense scene. to demo “that anyone could hold put a knife at the offense scene. ” He should hold been kicked off the jury the minute he went out and bought the knife. By jurisprudence. juries are non allowed to carry on their ain probes. and if the other jurymans had merely reported Juror No.
8 for that. he’d have been replaced by an surrogate. Yes. it’s cool for characters in a film to take the jurisprudence into their ain custodies. In existent life. you like to go forth undertakings like that to the people who have old ages of preparation and jurisprudence enforcement experience. Even with that. Juror No. 8’s whole line of logical thinking is incorrect at about every measure. Harmonizing to the jurisprudence. it’s the jury’s occupation to find the veracity of the grounds presented. as is — non to inquiry and construe the grounds any manner they choose and make wild premises about informants. For case. you don’t merely dismiss blood grounds as “probably planted” unless you are presented with grounds that it has been planted.
Similarly. you can’t merely hand-wave away jury testimony based on. “There were indents on her olfactory organ. ”
6. Rotten Tomatoes gave this film a 100 % evaluation. Are you surprised? Was this warranted? I am non surprised that Rotten Tomatoes gave this film 100 % evaluation ; it is a really alone film that has merely 12 characters and one scene. which captures a complex-riddled duologue utilizing rhetorical. logical. metaphorical strategies and a package of jaw-dropping playing by Henry Fonda.
But in my sentiment. I would rate this film a 92 % evaluation because though we learned in jurisprudence category on the duties and procedure in jury responsibility and deliberation many scenes would picture the opposite which caught my attending. but I understand that some parts were made to capture the audience’s attending throughout the film. which so they did and had to tweak the truth.