“12 Angry Men” concentrates on a jury’s considerations in a capital murder case. A 12-man jury is sent out to start deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old Latino implicated in the stabbing death of his dad, where a guilty verdict suggests automatic death sentence.
The case seems open-and-shut: The offender has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have actually lost is discovered at the murder scene; and numerous witnesses either heard shouting, saw the killing or the young boy getting away the scene.
Eleven of the jurors right away vote guilty; just Juror No. 8 (Mr. Davis) casts a not guilty vote.
At first Mr. Davis’ bases his vote more so for the sake of discussion after all, the jurors need to think beyond a sensible doubt that the offender is guilty. As the considerations unfold, the story quickly ends up being a study of the jurors’ complex characters (varying from sensible, brilliant and empathetic to conceited, prejudiced and merciless), preconceptions, backgrounds and interactions.
That offers the backdrop to Mr. Davis’ attempts in persuading the other jurors that a “not guilty” verdict might be suitable. A huge feel of the film is survived the time duration it occurred in.
Individuals’s views on race were made really openly within the jury. A lot of them seemed to have personal vendettas versus different races. They deemed the young boy’s Hispanic race to be slum and nothing more than that. A universal problem that is displayed in numerous ways throughout the movie is personal bias obstructing of judgment.
Juror number 10’s factor for stating the accused kid was guilty was due to the fact that he felt people from run-down neighborhoods should not be trusted and that they kill one and another for enjoyable. His prejudice lead him to victimize the kid initially by voting guilty previously in the movie, before being encouraged in voting not guilty.
This was throughout the civil liberties age and all of that. All of us understand blacks weren’t treated similarly and this makes it evident that it wasn’t simple for any minority within the United States. They ‘d rather lock them up and throw away the key than provide a fair trial. Stress run high the 2nd the jury entered into the personal room to ponder.
It was an extremely hot day outside and the fan wasn’t working nor would the windows open. No male wanted to invest more time than what they believed would be efficient to figure out the verdict. Some even spoke about their prepare for right after, thinking it would be a sure thing they ‘d be out of there soon with the whole night ahead of them.
They were incorrect. After that the movie turned into an example right out of a sociology textbook. Everyone didn’t differ the standard of the group … All except one, Juror # 8. The remainder of the jury was annoyed and deemed him a radical. They might not believe 2 things.
One, that he voted innocent, and second, that he broke the group norm. He tried not one bit to conform. Rather, he stood up in grand style and presented his doubts to his fellow jurors. Slowly but surely his grand plan was working. He did not understand for sure whether he was guilty or not guilty, however he had an affordable doubt which’s everything about what the justice system means.
It’s so intriguing when you bring a group of 12 random people into a setting like a jury and see what you develop. All of these guys, from various strolls of life, they all brought something special to the table that was important to their key decision. The sociological theory that tone of this film might quickly fall under is the conflict viewpoint.
At the very beginning, audiences can plainly see the stress is between the jurors whom the majority of have a personal prejudice versus the young boy for particular reason. Some jurors merely anticipated that a boy from the run-down neighborhoods would dedicate an act like that they were stereotyping that all individuals who originate from shanty towns are lawbreakers.
Even if a person is not personally prejudiced versus and individual or group, stereotypes can have them make inequitable actions such as vote guilty. The reason most of the jurors stereotyped the actions of the accused kids is because of socializing.
The method of transmission was more than likely through media; crimes shown by television new or new papers are often from neighborhood of low economics standing. Deviance a subject I discussed earlier, is another sociological element that can be examined in this movie. Deviance is an extremely relative term where depending upon the group and scenario, it differs.
Juror 8 was the only that felt from the beginning the boy was not guilty. When the first vote the majority of the other jurors by the truth he could think the young boy was innocent and even were upset at him for thinking that. As the film advanced the jurors started altering their votes, ultimately the roles were reversed; juror number 3 appear to be the one dedicating the deviant act given that it is exposed his own reason for voting guilty is due to the fact that of problems with his own child.
Among the most essential things I learned in observing the sociological aspects of this film is how simple standards can change. The norms of eleven out of the twelve men voted guilty, altered entirely to guilty as the movie pertained to a selected.