All evidence is against the boy and a guilty verdict would send him to die in the electric chair. A house painter, tough, but principled and respectful. When those remaining in favor of a guilty vote are pressed as to why they still maintain that there is no reasonable doubt, Juror 4 states his belief that despite all the other evidence that has been called into question, the fact remains that the woman who saw the murder from her bedroom window across the street through the passing train still stands as solid evidence.
Juror 11 also changes his vote, believing the boy would not likely have tried to retrieve the murder weapon from the scene if it had been cleaned of fingerprints. As Fonda continued to be sincere and respectful, other jurors began to take that stance as well. A jury of twelve men is locked in the deliberation room to decide the fate of the young boy.
As the jury foreman, he is somewhat preoccupied with his duties, although helpful to accommodate others. The experiment proves the possibility but Juror 5 then steps up and demonstrates the correct way to hold and use a switchblade; revealing that anyone skilled with a switchblade, as the boy would be, would always stab underhanded at an upwards angle against an opponent who was taller than them, as the grip of stabbing downwards would be too awkward and the act of changing hands too time consuming.
The judge informs the jurors that they are faced with a grave decision and that the court would not entertain any acts of mercy for the boy if found guilty.
At the end of the film, he reveals to Juror 9 that his name is Davis, one of only two jurors to reveal his name; played by Henry Fonda. Most likely the extent of these feelings and the effect it has on his perceptions is unconscious to him.
Beyond being valued and respected, it is important to understand what each member of the group can contribute to the overall process Kouzes and Posner, Four assumes that if the kid bought a switch knife that appears the same as the murder weapon, it must be the same knife.
Eventually, he finds himself the only one maintaining a vote of guilty. The purpose of this paper is to explore the creation of cooperative communities as well as positive leadership in group settings and additional practical implications.
Juror Four notes that the double jeopardy law would prevent that man from being retried for the same crime. Active Themes The vote is in favor of guilty: This is an especially important skill for leaders to possess and within the film Fonda models this behavior for the others within their small community.
Arriving at an unanimous not guilty verdict does not come easily. An architect and the first to vote "not guilty". He has his opinion and loves to share it. Unfortunately, leaving our prejudices outside the court room door is near impossible.
Jurors 12, 10 and 4 then change their vote to "not guilty", leaving only Juror 3. This blog post is a brief analysis of the film in relation to group dynamics.
In other words, I feel the need to incorporate the ethical consideration of diversity more than other members of the organization. Four thinks they can determine the truth, regardless.12 Angry Men study guide contains a biography of Reginald Rose, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.
An Analysis of the Hollywood Film 12 Angry Men to Explore the Effect the Film Creates on an Audience.
3 David Roberts The scene starts where they. "12 Angry Men" focuses on a jury's deliberations in a capital murder case. A man jury is sent to begin deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of an year-old man accused in the stabbing death of his father, where. Get all the details on 12 Angry Men: Analysis.
Description, analysis, and more, so you can understand the ins and outs of 12 Angry Men. 12 Angry Men Movie Analysis Twelve Angry Men Analysis BA Reaching a unanimous vote, beyond a reasonable doubt, was a difficult task for the jurors represented in the film, 12 Angry Men.
12 Angry Men is a American courtroom drama film adapted from a teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose.   Written and co-produced by Rose himself and directed by Sidney Lumet, this trial film tells the story of a jury made up of 12 men as they deliberate the conviction or acquittal of a defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt.Download