12 Angry Men Questions Essay

1. Do you think that the panel in this movie came to the right decision? Why/why non?I think that the instrument panel in this movie came to the wrong decision, because I nip that exclusively told through extinct the deliberation the actual evidence did non have all rea intelligenceable doubt lingering above it, which was the prohibited confrontation of the opinion of juror 8, and gradually both hotshot else. While there was literal evidence presented, juror 8 persuaded all the rest of the jurors at the closedown to disregard the forensics, and to deduce their own theories, by blatantly stating what if questions persuading all jurors to a unanimous decision.2. Did your opinion of the flake change as the movie progressed, or did it stay the same throughout the built-in movie? Explain.My opinion of the lineament changed as the movie progressed, and did non stay the same throughout the entire movie. In the beginning I felt that the teenage boy was inculpative and that t he facts were too unpatterned and clear, but slowly I was so mesmerised by juror 8s logic and his thinking ability, it got me evoke and swayed my vote for not guilty I also be consistved what juror 8 was saying by his tone of voice, which was clear and rhetorical. He arrangemented the panel a rough estimate on how long it would take for the father to countenance stabbed, walk with a limp, and still call for help.3. Juror 8 make the statement, Prejudice obscures the truth. Which character(s) based their decisions on prejudice? Explain. Juror 10 is one of the most racist and prejudice of the all the jurors a quote to show this is nary(prenominal) youre not going to tell us that were supposed to believe that fry, knowing what he is. Listen, Ive lived among em all my life. You finisht believe a word they say. I mean, theyre born(p) liars. When he says this he means/believes that people are born in slums are born to live lives of crime and disseat, even guanine juror 5 was born and lived in a slum all his life heis a perfectly respectable man. This proves that juror 10 was wrong and people born in slums arent born to lie and commit crime.4. Why do you think Juror 3 held out so long before changing his mind at the end?Juror 3 is the last to change his mind because of his mark against kids this grudge between him and his son had stemmed from a fight and immediately his son left home and has never seen him in more than two days. perpetually since that incident juror 3 has had a personal dislike against kids which is evident when juror 3 says that goddamn rotten kid, I know him, what theyre like. What they do to you. How they kill you every day. My God, dont you see? How puzzle Im the only one who sees? Jeez, I can feel that knife going in. This proves that juror 3 thinks he knows every kid in the whole world and knows that they are disrespectful and unthankful. notwithstanding by the end of deliberation when he was the lone man voting guilty, he was ove rwhelmed with pressure by the jurors and his bottled feelings for his son that instantly come out, realizing that he cannot hold dear the teenage boy like his son, and thus treat him fairly.5. Did this movie go forth an accurate depiction of jury deliberation? Explain. The deliberation was for pure amusement but also great acting was presented by the jurors as they showed the ambience in a deliberation room, as the testimony of many jurors in real life explain that they are very anxious to countenance and would like to quickly go home, who may listen to a case for days. Such jurors like juror three took notes and noted evidence and factual information, though it is very uncommon for jurors to take notes, it is legal and shows that some can remember while other are better to write things down. except one scene that rang an alarm for me is when juror 8 brought out the mistakable knife used in the crime scene, to show that anyone could have mark a knife at the crime scene. He sh ould have been kicked turned the jury the moment he went out and bought the knife. By law, juries are not allowed to conduct their own investigations, and if the other jurors had just reported Juror No.8 for that, hed have been replaced by an alternate. Yes, its assuredness for characters in a movie to take the law intotheir own hands. In real life, you like to leave tasks like that to the people who have years of training and law enforcement experience. Even with that, Juror No. 8s whole line of reasoning is wrong at almost every step. According to the law, its the jurys job to determine the ingenuousness of the evidence presented, as is not to question and interpret the evidence any way they choose and make wild assumptions about witnesses. For instance, you dont just dismiss blood evidence as probably set unless you are presented with evidence that it has been planted.Likewise, you cant just hand-wave away jury testimony based on, There were indents on her nose.6. Rotten Tomat oes gave this movie a 100% military rating. Are you move? Was this warranted? I am not surprised that Rotten Tomatoes gave this movie 100% rating it is a very odd movie that has only 12 characters and one setting, which amazes a complex-riddled dialogue victimization rhetorical, logical, metaphorical schemes and a bundle of jaw-dropping acting by Henry Fonda.But in my opinion, I would rate this movie a 92% rating because though we learned in law class on the responsibilities and march in jury duty and deliberation many scenes would depict the opposite which caught my attention, but I understand that some parts were made to capture the audiences attention throughout the movie, which indeed they did and had to tweak the truth.