Create a 10 pages page paper that discusses 12 angry men. The anonymity of nameless jurors reduced audience prejudice, although, juror 8 wore a white suit, and juror 32 wore a black suit in keeping with Hollywood symbolism. Juror 8 stood alone in his conviction, his ethic, that before sending a defendant to the death penalty, the jury had a duty to review the case.Several of the jurors commented they thought the defendant was guilty from early in the case, indicating an early personal deliberation without listening to the defense first. Juror 23 says he cannot put his reasons into words, just thought the defendant “guilty from the word go”. (Lumet 1957) Juror 64 says he was “convinced early” (Lumet 1957) when the prosecutor established a motive. Juror 75 exclaims “no one thought about it twice” (Lumet 1957) except juror 8. Clearly, these jurors did not honor their commitment to impartiality prior to deliberations.Although the defense attorney did not aggressively cross-examine witnesses, most jurors felt the defense counsel was competent, mostly by assumption. The assumption of competency logically leads to the conclusion that if there were a defense, it would have been presented. No defense, no rebuttal, no innocence. The defense counsel is never on screen, a cinematic no show.The fact that the boy was accused of killing his father, a man whose position was sympathetic to many on the jury, ironically foreshadowed the juror 8 roles in this drama. (Cunningham 1986) Juror 3 said his parenting skills involved “making his son a man” (Lumet 1957) until his son punched him in the jaw during an argument. Juror 8 raised his kids through love and respect. Juror 8 saw in the defendant an innocent child that never had a chance while the others only saw his superficial guilt.The movie continued through the first act with only juror 8 assuming the defendant was not guilty. The others were too emotional or prejudiced to review the facts. The first act ends with juror 8.
Recent Comments