1. The most effective critical thinker in 12 Angry Men is Henry Fonda’s character, Davis or Juror number eight. Davis really supported and stood by all of his decisions and examined the evidence thoroughly. He not only looked at the situation through his eyes, but also through the young boy’s and witnesses spectrums.
Davis was in no hurry to decide, which gave him time to really sit down and weigh out all the options and proof or non-proofs. He also did his own research by going to the boy’s neighborhood checking out the environment and purchasing a similar knife that was used in the murder, which was supposedly a one of kind and could not be purchased everywhere. By purchasing the knife Davis proved reasonable doubt of the situation which made most of the jurors want to hear more and think their decision thoroughly. When taking a second vote Davis suggested the option to vote differently by using a secretive ballot, so know ones name would be attached to their vote, which made a huge difference. This allowed one person to change their mind and not feel pressured or embarrassed to display their true feelings on the case.
2. The least effective critical thinker in 12 Angry Men was Lee J. Cobb’s character, Juror number three. His decisions and arguments were all based on personal views and vendettas against young kids. Juror number three had a strained relationship with his son, which left him bitter and very opinionated about his views about teenagers and what they were capable of doing. Because of his personal life, he was turned off by anyone else arguments and evidence, he was not seeing the situation at hand through a clear view, his decisions and poor judgment were..
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men is a play concerning 12 jury men who experience the difficulties of coming to a unanimous decision regarding a 16 year old murder suspect. In this case the importance of seeing things from more than one perspective is relevant as a young boy's life hangs in the balance. Rose highlights this through Juror 3 and 10's narrow minded views and the ways in which they must be persuaded. Also it is seen by Juror 8, who feels it only right to have each side of the story broken down and discussed thoroughly.…
- 721 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Biased testimony towards the defendant resulted in a prejudice jury. Very frequently, statements like ‘We heard the facts, didn’t we?’ or ‘Pay attention to the facts’ are expressed in the jury room. The 4th Juror cited that the murder weapon was a knife so unique that ‘the storekeeper who sold it to him identified the knife in court and said it was the only one of its kind he ever had in stock.’ The 8th Juror argues that ‘It’s possible that the boy lost the knife and that someone else stabbed his father with a similar knife.’ None of the Juror’s believes this possibility as they have already established their prejudices against the accused. The 10th Juror says ‘Let’s talk facts. These people are born to lie… They think different. They act different.’ These are not ‘facts’ but prejudice opinions made by the 10th Juror about the socio-economic status of the boy. It can assumed that the ‘facts’ presented in this case can be viewed as biased opinions and reports that impairs the true facts.…
- 853 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Reginald Rose's play, Twelve Angry Men, takes place in the 'jury-room of the New York Court of Law' in 1957, and explores how the persistence and determination of juror 8 eventually influences the other jurors into changing their minds about the verdict. Juror 8, the protagonist of the play, continually questions the veracity of the evidence in order to persuade other jurors to think about reasonable doubt. He goes out of his way to attempt to make other jurors deliberate about the murder. Even though the 8th juror broke the law by submitting the ‘one of a kind’ switchblade knife in the jury room the evidence was put into good hands and became a positive element towards the end of the play. The 8th Jurors intellectuality of twisting facts around is an important component that tests the…
- 747 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
The movie "12 Angry Men" focuses on a jury's decision on a capital murder case. A 12-man jury is sent to begin decisions on the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old Latino accused of stabbing his father to death, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. The case appears to be open-and-shut: The defendant has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have lost is found at the murder scene; and several witnesses either heard screaming, saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene. Eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty; only Juror No. 8 (Mr. Davis) casts a not guilty vote. At first Mr. Davis' bases his vote more so for the sake of discussion after all, the jurors must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. As the movie unfolds, the story quickly becomes a study of the jurors' complex personalities and how they deal with argumentation within groups and critical thinking. This allows Mr. Davis to try and convince the other jury members that the defendant might not be guilty by using cooperative argumentation, claim, evidence, warrant, facts, etc.…
- 836 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
2. How does the play/film Twelve Angry Men deepen our understanding of the constitutional guarantee of the right to trial by jury and the role of the jury system in American…
- 303 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
Reginald Rose’s play Twelve Angry Men emphasises the importance of seeing things from more than one perspective. Set in a New York jury room in 1957, Rose highlights how important it is that the jury discuss all of the evidence from the case in detail and from multiple angles. Representative of this notion is the 8th Juror who is willing to acknowledge alternative views or interpretations. From the outset of the play he goes against the crowd voting “not guilty”. He then considers all of the details of the evidence including the old man’s testimony and the boy’s inability to remember the movie he saw. In contrast to this character, are Jurors 3 and 10 who are portrayed as the antagonists because of their narrow mindedness and arrogance. They are very rigid in the way they apply their single minded world view and they have a reluctance to recognise the existence of another truth. Rose endorses the 8th Juror’s ability to see things from many perspectives and condemns the 3rd and 10th Juror’s inability to do so. This reveals the significance of looking at the evidence from a variety of perspectives in order to create a just verdict.…
- 974 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
"Its not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others". Twelve Angry Men is more than a play, it is a reminder of our social responsibility. Discuss.…
- 1253 Words
- 6 Pages
Better Essays -
The Jurors within Twelve Angry Men portray individual aspects of a 1950s American culture, all with their own take on the American Jury system. The closed minded, sheep like attitudes of the Jurors illustrates the McCathic mentality of the public which directly reflects the weaknesses within the American Jury system. Though flawed in many aspects one juror displays the key strength in the American justice system when dealing with serious crimes, a unanimous vote must be accomplished through the consideration of reasonable doubt. The question remains throughout if Juror 8 had not been present would the verdict of been the same? Would reasonable doubt of been taken into consideration? And was the American justice system strong enough to uphold their value of innocent until proven guilty.…
- 654 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
It only takes one man out of twelve to sway the minds of the rest of the people in the room. That is the main moral this story is trying to teach. It doesn’t matter quantity when it comes to opinions but the quality. Juror member number eight changed everyone’s mind in the jury from thinking the boy was guilty to not guilty. Juror eight did probably one of the hardest things in life, to stand up for your views when everyone else sees everything opposite from you. “It’s not so essay for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” Juror eight even said so himself it wasn’t easy what he did, but he still followed through with it because he deeply believed the boy wasn’t guilty. Juror eight persuaded each other juror by proving each story of how the boy killed his father wrong. At the end, every juror did not have any reasonable doubt that the boy killed his father. Juror three was the last one to agree. “Well, you’re not going to intimidate me! I’m entitled to my opinion.” After a brief second he sucked up his stubbornness and voted not guilty. In the end it shows how one man can have a great influence on the minds of many.…
- 420 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
In analyzing 12 Angry Men the first theory that came to mind is the Universal Theory of Leadership. The theory is defined as the belief that certain personal characteristics and skills contribute to leadership effectiveness in many situations. This shows true with Juror #8. Juror #8 was the architect who emerged as a real effective leader. The architect showed self-confidence and assertiveness. He convinced the jury that once all thought the young man was guilty to believing he was innocent due to the lack of proof and questionable assumptions. He showed himself as respectable, knowledgeable, and authentic. The architect rose question as to whether or not the circumstances could be possible by re-enacting the situation. He challenged the process completely by doing this. He was also a leader of integrity because he was loyal to rational principles, practiced what he preached, and did this regardless of the social pressure from fellow jurors’. With these characteristic traits the architect proves to be an charismatic and effective leader.…
- 681 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
English 2010 focuses on critical thinking, argumentation, persuasion, and analytical arguments. After viewing the film, 12 Angry Men, and reading Chapter 1, it is evident that the struggles of these jurors demonstrate much what the author presents in critical thinking. As the jurors arrived they were aware of the stifling heat and one open window. One juror had tickets to a baseball game that was to begin in one hour. All but one man was quite willing to move “Toward the views that seem obviously right,” (pg. 9). The boy was obviously guilty. The group agreed to talk it over for an hour as putting a boy to death is not an easy decision. They began to look at thoughts and observations and attempt to “Eliminate snap judgments” (pg. 3). One man clearly expressed prejudice against “Them”, the people who live in the slums. He said, “This kid don’t even know how to speak good English.” Another young man said he had also grown up in the slums and questioned the evidence of the stabbing. A switchblade knife is not used…
- 812 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
The film “12 Angry Men” is a 1957 drama consisting of a dozen men on jury, who attempt to reach a verdict involving a teenager in a murder case. A guilty verdict was initially predicted, but the jury members start questioning and reasoning the testimonies given in court. Was the boy being accused of stabbing his father really guilty? All the information regarding the timing of the train, the timing of the murder, and the testimonies did not add up. Through much debate, a complex voting process, and many concepts learned through SCOM, the jury managed to attain a not-guilty ruling due to the inadequate testimonies and facts gathered.…
- 1027 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
In the movie «12 angry men», one can explore a variety of fallacies and generalizations. Each juror except for one comes in with a verdict of «Guilty», but by using critical thinking the reasons to support their claim are dismissed one by one. Except for Juror number three who is the last one to change his verdict. He disregards all critical reasoning and sticks to his initial claim using multiple fallacies to support it. He is clearly prejudiced towards the defendant no mater the evidence brought forward to him. Only at the end does he realize that all this time he was seeing his own son in the eyes of this boy, a son that had «disrespected» the father. Him. Following are only some of the multiple fallacies juror number three used to support his claim.…
- 893 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Prejudice: There are many significant views and values that Reginald Rose demonstrates in 12 Angry Men the most important one being that prejudice constantly affects the truth and peoples judgement. As the jurors argue between themselves as to whether a young boy is guilty of stabbing his father it is shown that “It’s very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this.” This is most evident in the way juror #3 and juror #10 come to their decision that the young man is guilty as they bring in there prejudice against young people and people from the slums to make their judgement without considering the facts of the case. Rose uses juror #8 who can see the whole trial because he is calm, reasonable and brings no prejudice as a prime example of what a juror is supposed to be like.…
- 510 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
When reading the play "12 angry men", is it hard to ignore the prominent character- 'the 8th Juror'. As the plot unfolds, the reader notices that Juror #8 is the only one among the 12 who really understands the seriousness of the situation at their hands.…
- 636 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays