12 Angry men example practice PDF

Preview

Summary

Download 12 Angry men example practice PDF

Description

12 Angry men Analyze the work of the jury in the film. The different member (jurors), their role in decisionmaking, possible criticisms to this jury, etc. The jury had to decide whether the defendant was guilty (sentenced to the electric chair) or innocent (acquitted). The jury: Juror 1, Foreman: assistant high school football coach who coordinated the discussion. He was in charge of asking for the evidence, calming the rest of the jury and making sure that the talk followed an order. At first, he votes that the young man is guilty, but ends up being convinced that he is not. In my opinion, your first decision is not due to prejudice but to a lack of in-depth reasoning of the case. He has good intentions and respects his peers at all times. Juror 2, a timid bank worker whose opinions are affected by those of others. He supports the last jury to speak. However, as the discussion develops, he presents stronger opinions and ends up being convinced of the possible innocence. Some members of the jury are disrespectful because of their lack of character. Juror 3, a courier businessman with an extremely strong character, this man seems full of anger. He does not want to be convinced that the young man can be innocent and defends the opposite until the end. His arguments are not well founded and he does not say anything that the others cannot refute. He is characterised by his shouting and lack of respect for others. Finally, we learn that his anger and his willingness to condemn the young man are due to his own family situation (his son refuses him). Juror 4, an analytical stock broker. This man seems imperturbable, he is one of the last to be convinced. His arguments and convictions are based exclusively on reason. Finally he is convinced that there is reasonable doubt about the innocence of the young man. He treats his companions with respect even though he seems to be a cold and calculating person. He only shows signs of weakness at one point in the discussion (he sweats when his last argument is refuted). Juror 5, a man who grew up in a violent slum. This man proves to be good-hearted and respectful of his fellow men despite having to endure the prejudices of some of them. He is sensitive to negative opinions about slums. He begins to defend the possible innocence of the young man by identifying with him and realizing that some of his peers saw him as guilty only because of prejudice. Juror 6, a house painter. He is a tough man with clear principles. This man defends at first the condemnation of the young man and later his acquittal. He does not fervently defend one opinion or the other, he simply becomes convinced as his peers begin to express their doubts. He is characterized by his intolerance of disrespect, defending those who suffer from it (especially the elderly) Juror 7, a salesman and Yankee’s fan. This man seems worried about anything mundane (a game, dinner)... but not about the case. He does not care about the final resolution nor does he want to consider the situation. He simply wants to get it over with as quickly as possible. He does not seem to realise that a life is at stake.

Davis, Juror 8; an architect. He is the first to deny the young man's conviction. He presents doubts and questions the evidence in the case. He is tremendously intelligent and respectful. His concern for the case demonstrates a very high sense of morality and duty. At first, he is criticized, but finally he makes many of his colleagues think and they all end up voting for acquittal. Juror 9; the senior. Initially, it votes on the condemnation. He decides to listen to Davis and is one of the first to agree with him. He proves to be wise and very observant, realizing flaws in the evidence and testimonies that no one else is able to see. He suffers some disrespect, but he is defended and admired by the majority of the jury. Juror 10, a garage owner. A disrespectful and insulting man. He is one of the last to be convinced of the young man's possible innocence. In the end, he shows that his conviction was based solely on prejudice against people from the poor quarters. When he gives this opinion nobody supports him and this makes him realize his mistake. Juror 11, a watchmaker who has a foreign accent and finds it a bit difficult to express himself, so we can deduce that he is not of American origin. He shows respect for his peers, is convinced of the possible innocence of the young man by hearing the arguments of his peers. He shows great respect and admiration for democracy. Juror 12, advertising executive. Whose decisions are constantly affected by the strong opinions of others. He is not able of making a firm decision and stick to it. Perhaps this is due to a lack of confidence in his own ability, but his intentions are good and he wants to support the right decision (although he does not know what it is).

Are they led by their prejudices? What is the advantage of having different social profiles in the jury? Some judges get carried away by their prejudices, but these end up being dismantled. The benefits of having different social profiles on the jury are, as clearly seen in the film, the contribution of different points of view, ideas, experiences, knowledge... and ways of thinking that clash with each other and end up with biases. “Please, separate the facts and the fancy…”. Are the facts obvious? The facts are not clear, it is very complicated to know with total certainty something that we have not witnessed. Therefore, many of the facts are basically assumptions. What is the meaning of “beyond reasonable doubt”?

What is the role of deliberation in reaching a verdict? The role of deliberation is to dismantle false assumptions, provide different ways of looking at the case, provide details that may have been overlooked, remove prejudices and errors that may lead to an unjust verdict....