With the topic being: The film Twelve Angry Men demonstrates that we should question our thinking before making important decisions. Discuss.
So far my essay is as follows:
The film Twelve Angry Men, based on the screenplay by Reginald Rose is set during a first degree murder trial during summer in New York City. A jury of twelve has just heard all the evidence concerning the trial and is now ready to deliberate. The boy has a history of misdemeanour crimes and the prosecution has built up a very strong case against him, the jury take a preliminary vote, the vote is 11-1. Frustrated at the 8th Juror (the only juror to vote not guilty) the remainder of the jury begins to hear the 8th Jurors reasoning. The film follows the jury's decisions and exemplifies the need to be objective, question facts and break down prejudice to come to a concise verdict without reasonable doubt.
By voting not guilty Juror 8 has already made an objective decision, unlike many other members of the jury; Juror 8 has set aside any preconceived beliefs, values or notions to come to an objective decision. To be objective is to be undistorted by emotion or personal bias; and allowing facts and truths to form your decision. Objectivity is important when coming to a decision so that our personal bias' are excluded, Juror 3 failed to do this when he allowed his tumultuous relationship with his son affect his opinion within the trial and fuel his anger and irritation directed at his fellow jurors. His prejudice is revealed when he unintentionally relates the defendant to his own son "...I know him. What they're like. What they do to you. How they kill you everyday..." Ultimately his subjectivity is revealed and Juror 3 is left sobbing, a broken man and having realised his prejudice and self pity.
Not only did Juror 8 think objectively but he questioned the authenticity of facts. Several members of the jury remained adamant throughout the deliberation that the testimonies of 'witnesses' were true when in-fact through questioning such 'facts' Juror 8 disproves the testimonies and 'facts', convincing much of the jury of the defendants innocence. Juror 8 was not the only Juror to question facts, but he was the first, it is this that truly sets his aside from the crowd. He didn't think whether to question the facts or not, he acted impulsively and questioned them without hesitation. An issue within the film is the lack of condemnation when one jury member fails to list a reason for voting not guilty Even when objectivity is present and facts have been questioned some decisions are faulted, the cause of this is prejudice.
Prejudice is essentially a prejudgement, a understanding is clouded and lacks adequate knowledge to be rational. Often a sign of prejudice is an abnormal resistance to influence of opinion, Juror 3 is a brilliant example of this as throughout the film facts are presented directly at him yet Juror 3 remains resistant.
With only a few essays 'under my belt' I feel that feedback is essential,
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Justin :)
So far my essay is as follows:
The film Twelve Angry Men, based on the screenplay by Reginald Rose is set during a first degree murder trial during summer in New York City. A jury of twelve has just heard all the evidence concerning the trial and is now ready to deliberate. The boy has a history of misdemeanour crimes and the prosecution has built up a very strong case against him, the jury take a preliminary vote, the vote is 11-1. Frustrated at the 8th Juror (the only juror to vote not guilty) the remainder of the jury begins to hear the 8th Jurors reasoning. The film follows the jury's decisions and exemplifies the need to be objective, question facts and break down prejudice to come to a concise verdict without reasonable doubt.
By voting not guilty Juror 8 has already made an objective decision, unlike many other members of the jury; Juror 8 has set aside any preconceived beliefs, values or notions to come to an objective decision. To be objective is to be undistorted by emotion or personal bias; and allowing facts and truths to form your decision. Objectivity is important when coming to a decision so that our personal bias' are excluded, Juror 3 failed to do this when he allowed his tumultuous relationship with his son affect his opinion within the trial and fuel his anger and irritation directed at his fellow jurors. His prejudice is revealed when he unintentionally relates the defendant to his own son "...I know him. What they're like. What they do to you. How they kill you everyday..." Ultimately his subjectivity is revealed and Juror 3 is left sobbing, a broken man and having realised his prejudice and self pity.
Not only did Juror 8 think objectively but he questioned the authenticity of facts. Several members of the jury remained adamant throughout the deliberation that the testimonies of 'witnesses' were true when in-fact through questioning such 'facts' Juror 8 disproves the testimonies and 'facts', convincing much of the jury of the defendants innocence. Juror 8 was not the only Juror to question facts, but he was the first, it is this that truly sets his aside from the crowd. He didn't think whether to question the facts or not, he acted impulsively and questioned them without hesitation. An issue within the film is the lack of condemnation when one jury member fails to list a reason for voting not guilty Even when objectivity is present and facts have been questioned some decisions are faulted, the cause of this is prejudice.
Prejudice is essentially a prejudgement, a understanding is clouded and lacks adequate knowledge to be rational. Often a sign of prejudice is an abnormal resistance to influence of opinion, Juror 3 is a brilliant example of this as throughout the film facts are presented directly at him yet Juror 3 remains resistant.
With only a few essays 'under my belt' I feel that feedback is essential,
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Justin :)
