I found this movie to be quite interesting. It showed how things like race, gender,personal bias and discrimination played a huge role in not only our society but also in our judicial system at that time. For instance, the bigger of of the 12 men had such a personal bias against the kid on trial just because he had a son who was also a problem child like they thought of the defendent.Discrimination also played a huge role as well. The older of the men had given an opinion and was told by another of the angry men that his theory could not be believed because nobody believes the words of old people. That itself was discrimination against the elderly. The fact that there were no women or even a single minority on the jury made it very hard for the kid to get a fair verdict at first. The one angry guy was very racist and just kept throwing around the fact that " that these kids come from the slumps and crime is all they know" when in fact there are kids who came from the slumps who did not commit murder. I applaud the one guy for standing up and disagreeing because it actually saved a young mans life. It's sad how even today this still goes on in most courtrooms but people like the first guy to say "Not guilty" are making a difference! Jessme246
I agree there was a lot of discrimination in the movie, and each man had some type of target on there back, they were all able to pick each other apart and find the weakness of the other, I believe this is what ultimately determined the outcome, the fact that each man was discriminated against and their own 'flaws" were brought to their attention, it made them see things in a different aspect. -heartsiized246
Agreed i did notice that they kind of took turns at each other to prove directly to how they were discriminating against the kid. Whether it was the man with the glasses, or the man from the slums, I thought that was very clever of them to make it almost personally to each other. -WISC_hurdler246
I thought this one guy knew everything , but he didn’t. He still thought the kid was guilty even when talk about the evidence because he had a personal prejudice towards this kid. It killed him to vote not guilty at the end of the movie. It look like to me that they were at each other throats the entire time. They argued about the case and it got to a point that they started personal attacks against each other. It is amazing what happens when you get 12 guys in a room. I think when you have a jury you need at least 4 women in the room because I think there would be less fighting if you have 4 women and 8 men in the room instead of it being all men. Kevin246
I had forgotten about the discrimation of the older gentlemen. He was infact very wise and had a lot of knowlege. Our eldery population is larger than ever today and they are treated differently because of their age. I think it would be interesting too to see if it had been a women in the film. Althought there was the statement of one women even though she was not shown on screen. Her statement was the last to be proven wrong, therefore showing that even a women had a high stand in society that a boy of latin decent. GMD246
I thought this movie was inspiring in a way, it goes to show that if you stand out and say how you feel regardless of what other people say or think ultimately you are winning. I thought it was interesting that this movie did in fact have something to do with race and gender, I honestly didn't pay attention to this fact until it was brought up in class. I also found it interesting that the leader of this group who stood and said not guilty found a way to target each of the men and make it personal, by bringing up different facts about the case he made each one of the men see it in a different point of view and perhaps made the men a little less closed minded. Its interesting to see how different things were in the past compared to now when it comes to race and gender, and it makes me wonder how different things would have been if there happened to be a woman on the jury then or someone of different ethnicity. -heartsiized246
Some of the juryers thought one juryer was telling stories, instead of trying to talk about all the details. It is sad that some people bring their personal bias to the court room. You shouldn’t bring their personal bias to the court room. I think they want to convict that guy because he was Latio and I think that is really sad that people in the 1950s had that type of prejudice. One of the guys got caught in a lie when they asked him questions. Facts are supposed to determine the case not personal prejudice. It shouldn’t be a personal things when you’re in a jury. Kevin246
I think you make good points. I didn't think of it much even though it was right in front of my face. Even though we didn't live that era we still understand the way things were and in doing so we sometimes miss this obvious cause we are so use to it. It is interesting to think what it would have been like given one of the people would have been a female or someone of different ethnicity. Nick246
I agree, if there was some more diversity in the jury panel the first vote to convict the boy would not have been one sided. It is horrible that so many of the jurors brought in some form of personal bias into the courtroom. On phase that a lot of the jurors said was , "it is obvious he is guilty i could tell form the beginning of the case." that just shows that the jurors had already made up their mind even before they saw the facts to prove the boy guilty. -Tyler246
It is crazy to think how different sociology or social norms were back then and it was not that long ago. When this movie was made in April of 1957, which was only 56 years ago! It was about a group of people serving jury duty in a murder trial where a kid of Hispanic ethnicity was accused of killing his own father with his knife. One man goes against all other 11 jury members just because he had the decency to over look the fact the kid "allegedly" accused of the crime was considered a minority and was a victim of Social inequality of the time while everyone else just went along with the racist stereotype. But slowly but surly he got everyone to see the light and overlook the differences. It was pretty obvious how everyone was just so confident in the racial stereotype, they didn't even care to give this kid 5 minutes of their time. Not to mention the self-centered impatient guy with the hat who constantly was egging people on about leaving, was wiling to put the kid on the chair just because he wanted to go to the baseball game. All the jurors were white, there were no minorities just one recent immigrant but of European decent. There were no women either, which is plausible to think that with both involved it would have given the boy a better chance from the beginning, both being discriminated against for years. A few of them kept saying things like people of poverty where more likely to commit crimes, which they called the slums and were saying things like "those people". But one of the jurors was from the so called "Slums" and proved just from where you are from doesn't mean you commit crime. Most of the men were either just agreeing with what looked obvious from afar or were just too timid to stand of for what was right. But there were 2 main Extremist in the jury that really only cared about their specific discrimination and would not budge no matter how much of the evidence was proved wrong. One was mostly about race and the other was with children all together. There is nothing wrong with truly believing in something and not changing your mind about it and that makes it 100% your opinion but forcing it on others is not the right way to approach things which they found out as soon as a few of the jurors where getting tired of the obnoxious extremists and was going to "Lay him out" if he didn't stop yelling. But all it took was one man just stop and wait a minute (and quite cleverly at most times) to overlook all the kids social difference and realize that he is just a child with a rough life and that he deserves a chance instead of just succumbing to the ignorant social stigmas of that time period (which was most likely a normal of that time period).
Our society has come a long way since the making of this film. We now have people of different race and enthicity and women serving on a jury. It is sad in a way that there is so much discrimination in this film and that was the norm then. We have come a long way and still have a ways to come. GMD246
I found at the start of the film that permeated murder is a serious offense even in the 1950s. I found shocking that one of the juryers would say that “a murder case is exciting”. It has to be 12-0 to convince someone of a crime in the 1950s. I couldn’t believe that 11 guys at first decided in 5 minutes that the murder was guilty before even talking about it for at least an hour. I think they were in a rush to get out of there. I learned back in the 1950s children used to had to call their dad sir. I think sometimes witnesses can lie in court and be wrong. You can look at somebody and tell that they are lying. The one guy in the hat only care about going to a baseball game instead of doing what was right for justice. I think some of these guys bought their personal bias to the court room. I think you should never bring your personal bias when you are in a jury. Kevin246
If I recall correctly, they had been in court six days and heard several witnesses, so it wasn't decided in the first 5 minutes of the case, only five minutes after they entered the juror's room. Yes, sometimes witnesses lie, whether it's to make themselves look better, protect someone else, or even to hurt the defendant, which is terrible. You can't always tell if someone is lying, though. Sometimes it gets easier if you know the person for a long time, but not always. But you're right, bias should never come into the courtroom. -Moony246
I couldn't agree with you more Kevin! All these men were so focused on getting out of there that they didn't want to give the man a chance to explain why he chose not guilty. I believe the one man was excited to pull the switch on this boy. That to me is very cold blooded and hard for me to digest. There was a lot of personal bias through out this film. Great work! CooCoo246
I felt that most of the people didn't think of the person being tried as much as they thought about what was happening and what had happened. Like the one man who plead not guilty at the beginning said the killer (boy) had just become a man in age and his father did hit him closed handed on more then one occasion. Also I think witnesses may believe they say something that was close to what they think but not entirely what they thought. They say when people try to recall memory that they convince themselves of untrue small details to piece in a whole story around the things they do remember. So I have herd. Nick246
I liked the fact that the first man to say not guilty wasn't because he thought he wasn't, simply that there was room for doubt. It showed that he wasn't so close-minded, just to base his vote on race or age. He was smart about bringing the topic up, pointing out contradictions left and right. He was patient when people interrupted him, and answered them calmly and logically. I liked that a lot. These people, most of them, brought their personal bias into the juror's room, and that clouded their judgement, which almost allowed a possibly innocent boy to be sent to the electric chair. I would have hated to see that happen, but I'm glad someone stood up and said something. He called everyone out on their bias and made sure they understood every bit of evidence perfectly before casting a vote. I liked most that Juror...Seven, I believe, wanted justice, and only justice, to go on. -Moony246
I found these aspects of the movie interesting as well, the way the man who's verdict was not guilty carried himself said a lot about his character, he made the other jurors think, he brought other possibilities to the table. This movie really makes you think about the reality of the court system, sometimes innocent people's lived are in the hands of people who are closed minded and not willing to think outside the box, they let their prejudice thoughts cloud their judgement. -heartsiized246
The personal bias did kind of cloud the judgement but helped make the movie and the point. One man can change all those other jurors into saying not guilty. All the men were stereotyping this boy because how he was raised and where he came from. Which in a way is prejudice. I also would have hated to see this boy go to the chair. Although one man was excited to pull the switch. CooCoo246
I agree I liked the way that the one juror stood alone and voted not guilty because he was not sure if the boy was guilty or not. I think that is he had not calmly presented his points of doubt and not gave in to the peer pressure of the group, the young boy would have been given the death penalty. It was very courageous of the young boy to stand up to the others the dig deeper into the case and testimonies to see if what the witnesses had to say made sense.-Tyler246
I agree with you. The first man to choose not guilty didn’t necessarily think that the young boy was not guilty, just felt that he wanted to hear all the reasons and think through the conviction logically. He said himself that someone’s life is on the line, and he didn’t want to put the wrong person in the chair. Bullardml13-246
There are 11 guilty vs 1 non-guilty. The look on all the jurors face when the one man said "not guilty." There was discrimination against the old man who had an opinion and the juror who said "not guilty." At first I didn't believe this had anything to with the boys race, until it was brought up towards the end of the movie. I thought it had to do more with his ethnicity. The fact that he came from a family who had no mother, and a father who was a abusive, this made the boy himself a bad person. That's what the jurors thought, except the one man who wanted to open the eyes of the others. It's funny how the eleven guilty jurors wanted to talk how violence was that of a bad thing but then you had one of the guilty jurors talking about his son and how he was gonna make a man out of him. All because his son walked away from a fight when he was 9, the man wanted to instill violence in him. I believe this man had an authoritarian personality. Something that can't be changed because he was set in his ways. Something that was said that caught my eye in the movie was when one of the men said this, "Prejudiced always obscures the truth." I believe this to be true for this movie and for so much in today's life. It amazed me how one man changed 11 guilty votes to 12 not guilty.
I also found the part about the one juror making a man out of his son or break him into trying very interesting. This was a great example of our societal beliefs about gender and how men should be tough. I have found myself thinking about this topic a lot since I had children and knowing that the way we as parents treat our children will directly affect their views of how men and women should be. Glide246
This movie was a good example how times change and provides good evidence why a change was better. There were many different areas of prejudice in this film as well as gender. I would believe that most of the men in the film that were the angriest would have not been that way if there were women present as well as the women being equal in rights of how they stand in society. The fact that gender rights and minority rights were not like they are today gave more complications as far as being equal to all people. If there was less social prejudice the people may not have all been Caucasian males and even then they would have had a different view for that society would have been less prejudice. It shows that given enough people someone is bound to be more open minded and in my opinion more of a well rounded human. Nick246
I agree with you Nick that times have changed. We have more Women and people of other race than just white Men. That movie took place in the 1950s because all of the people in the Jury were White Men. It is always good to have Women and Men in the Jury because there will likely be less prejudice. With all 12 Men in that Jury doing the movie there was a lot of prejudice. I’m glad we come a long way in this country with our prejudice. We still have prejudice now in America, but it is not as bad as it was in the 1950s. Kevin246
I agree that the film did show how different people were back then even sixty years ago. Especially with the part of the jury being all white men, and no females like you mentioned. It's crazy to believe what basically what was not that long ago how people were. Society as a whole has made giant improvements from what it use to be like. From being close-minded people to now accepting people from all types of backgrounds. Red246
Can you imagine what a world of difference if the jury had women on it? Or if it had minority groups? This movie showed how influential the white male was back then. The movie shown this about one case. Imagine all the other cases back then that were affected by jurors not talking about the case they were assigned to and fulfilling their job to their best ability because of personal biased. How sad. Falcons246
I think that the movies showed that prejudice effected the logical thought process of several people. I found it crazy that the 11 of the 12 jurors where just going to convict a young man of murder on poor evidence because they had preconceived of the boy before the trial even started. These preconceived ideas about his race, ethnicity, and age lead the jurors to take the evidence about the case at face value. They did not want to dig deeper because if they did it might hurt the evidence that was presented in their favor. I think that the jury was so one sided against the boy is because the jury panel so similar. They were all adult white males with a steady job. There was no diversity to look at the case in a different point of view. I think what troubles me the most is that a couple of the men just voted without having a good reason. For example the guy with the baseball tickets. He just want to leave to see the game and didn't care about the out come. Another was the marketing guy who's reply to most questions asked to him was "I don't know". Then the men would were extremely prejudice against the boy use logical fallacies to argue their side, like attacking other peoples personality instead of the point that they were making. I cannot even imagine how many people were wrongfully convicted because of jury panels back then. -Tyler246
Sad that the jurors would choose to convict him based solely on his race. It made me wonder how many real life “criminals” were convicted solely on their race! Luckily our nation has come far, and if the jurors were around today they would be of different genders and different races. Bullardml13-246
We have progressively gotten better as a nation with our judicial system but imagine even before this time when people were burned at the stake, stoned or killed just based on assumptions or prejudices. in a way this movie shows a bit of progression while at the same time just how far we needed to go towards change. mfroggyus246
When I first start watching a film, I like to be taken in within the first couple minutes of it. With this movie, the beginning throughout its entirety was intense. The beginning was an assembly of 12 jurors who sat through a case. This case involved a young Latin boy, who (supposedly) stabbed his father. This movie's setting was in the 1950's, and in that era. The courts were comprised of mostly older wealthy white men. This didn't change in this scenario either; however, when the juror in charge wanted to know everyone's verdict. There was one juror who chose not-guilty. I am sure it was a choice, that many didn't see coming. In this setting, race and ethnicity were against the Latin boy. The juror who chose not guilty, through analysis of everyone's statement who was on the bench. He persuaded all of the others to plead not guilty, too. This young boy more than likely thought he was going to be charged murder; however, with the aid of the jurors he didn't see that outcome. I believe it was men like the odd juror who would shape out American is today. 60 years ago too, their were no women in the court system either. They were told to do the cleaning and cooking at home. Would I recommend this movie to others, yes. I would recommend it to others, for the how America was and then compare it to todays society. starburst246
I enjoyed this movie very much. How one man stood alone in his belief that the defendant was not guilty. Against 11 others saying guilty he made all of them see further into the evidence that was brought. As there were at least 3 jurors that were prejudice in the room that was making the convincing a little more difficult. Alluring was the oldest of all the jurors, he stood up against a gentleman who belittled him horribly. He pointed out some wonderful evidence in regards to the eye glasses a witness wears. As for the ending, getting the last "not guilty" gentleman he broke down seeing finally he was just saying guilty because of his relationship to his own son. Labrador246
Its crazy that just one guy out of a group of twelve was able to persuade the others into going over all the evidence piece by piece and giving this boy a fair trial. All of these guys started out voting all guilty and really sticking to their vote, but then you can see how when they slowly start to piece together the evidence against this kid that they can tell it wasn't very legit evidence and that they were looking past what race he was or by where he was from. kmoney246
I think sometimes all it takes is one voice, one person who is passionate enough about a cause they can persuade more people to thinking the way they do. Once one person convinces another it multiplies from there. I also feel that the men were to worried about getting on with their life outside of being jurors than they were about putting someone to death. Obviously one of them felt another persons life was more important than a baseball game or whatever else they all were leaving to do. mfroggyus246
It's so cool that one man made a huge difference. It takes one person to start a chain reaction, which is what this movie showed as well. When you stand firm to what you are saying, you can make a difference! josko246
All it takes is for one person to stand up and say something to be able to change the mindset of other people. I agree on how it was cool to see the one guy stand up against the other people, if he would of not been there then everyone would go on with their ways. The movie was a great example of standing up for what a person believes in, and to be able to support their opinion with examples and reasoning. Red246
That really is all it takes for change to happen. Just one voice to stand up for the one's who cannot do it themselves. It's crazy to know that since then we have come so far in being tolerant of others. Anyone can make a difference if they stand up for what they believe in. We are powerful beings, not everyone believes in themselves. When you can't do that, you can't in others. blub246
This video also made me realize that all it takes is one person to stick to their beliefs, to affect change. While all the other jurors were so sure that the Latino boy had done it, based on the flimsy evidence the prosecutor presented and based on their prejudices towards "those kinds", one person was able to point out details that they had simply refused to see, because surely he couldn't be guilty.
I enjoyed watching this movie. I think it takes courage to stand along against 11 other men who believe that the kid being charged with murder was guilty. It is not easy to stand along and try to changed other people’s mind. There were 2 guys that just wanted to get out of there and thought he was guilty no matter what. One of the guys was wearing a hat and all he was interested in is going to a baseball game instead of doing what was right. The other guys was wearing straps and a long-tie. It killed him at the end to vote not guilty because he believed that kid was guilty no matter what. That guy was prejudice against that kid because he was Latino and had no interested in doing the right thing. I think it is really sad that some people would let their prejudice get in the way of doing the right thing for justice. Kevin246
I found this film very interesting. It’s a blast from the past! Hard to believe that only 50 years ago this racial discrimination was happening. Not only racial discrimination, but gender as well. Some of the men treated the boy like a dog, or something even worse, someone who didn’t deserve rights. They didn’t know this young man, but a few of them refused to believe that there was any chance he could be innocent. What happened to being innocent until proven guilty? I also wondered if that were part of the witness bias as well, were they all being racist as well when saying that they heard the kid say he was going to kill his dad. Or the lady across the street that saw the young boy murder his dad, did she just say the things she said because of the boys race? This movie opens your eyes, and makes you realize that how far our nation has come in 50 years. If that were a courtroom today, you would see many genders and races. Which makes things more fair for the accused. I wonder how many “criminals” were convicted due to the race, and in actuality were innocent. Bullardml13-246
50 years really isn't that long ago and its crazy to think how far we've come from how bad discrimination used to be. These days if this case would of happened you would of seen a way bigger difference with there being a mix of men and women and I'm sure more then one person would of voted not guilty. It is an eye opener to think how many other people were wrongly accused of crimes they didn't commit only because of what race they were and them basically not getting a chance at being proved not guilty. kmoney246
It definitely shows how far our country has came. From the slaves, to the women just being in the house to cook and clean, and to today's society where there is no discrimination. I concur the men were mean to the boy because he was of a different ethnic background. I applaud the man that stood against the others and voted not guilty. Then he went through analytic measures to prove his innocence. Today, that wouldn't be so odd as it was back then. starburst246
This movie really did show how far society has come about accepting change! It is so weird to me that my grandparents lived in a time when blacks and whites couldn't even go to the same school. Discrimination was such a huge problem 50 years ago, and today it's something that isn't really thought about unless it's an extreme circumstance. josko246
I agree. Watching this movie mad me sad to realize that only 50 years ago, innocent might have been convicted just based on their race and where they were from. All because people let racial, gender, and economic differences get in the way. For the majority of the jurors to simply find it impossible for this Latino boy to be innocent of killing his father. it really blew my mind!
I actually really enjoyed watching this film 12 Angry Men. There was the one 18 year old boy who was getting charged for first degree murder who had supposedly killed his father with a switch blade knife and there were two different witnesses that claimed they saw him do it. It would seem like an open and close case and that the kid for sure had done it, but when it came down to choosing guilty or not guilty one of the men said he didn't think the boy had done it and wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. I think that would take a lot to be the only one to vote opposite of everybody else because when your in a group like that you kind of get persuaded to just along with everyone else based on what everyone else is voting for. You can tell that the votes were mostly based off of his race because he was Mexican and when one of the guys was talking about him he addressed him as "a kid like that," or "these people are dangerous," which would be stereotyping based off of where he was from and his race.Its crazy to see how big of a change there has been between then and now having to do with racism. Its like in Martin Luther King Jr's speech when he said "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." What if that guy wouldn't of been there to vote not guilty? That kid would of died for something he didn't do and their votes were only based off of what kind of person he was and not by the facts. Then in the movie when he said "he never will hear you," which pretty much meant that no matter what you say to him he's always going to stick with the same thing. Its sad that back then these kinds of things happened all the time and that not everyone was treated equally just because of what ethnicity they were. kmoney246
It is not only "back then" that these kinds of things happened. It is clear that if someone rich kills the penalty will not be as severe (such as the OJ Simpson case) comparing to someone that has struggles in life at. If someone comes from a poor area is expected to be a criminal. Doglover246
It's really sad that most of those prejudices are still present in society today. Just because someone comes from a slum they are automatically labeled as a criminal or a deviant, even though they cant help where they were born. Even skin color comes in to play on whether to determine if they are trustworthy or not. -alterend246
I thought not only did the actions of the men in the film show many different versions of discrimination toward each other and towards the accused but the writing and casting made it that much more evident the prejudices of the time. Why wasn't it a white man or a women on trial instead of a hispanic boy? Someone along the line made that decision. The idea that one man would stand alone in his convictions that the boy could be innocent was almost appauling to the men either because of his race, age, social standing and suggested deviance. The man who initially stood alone had the right idea, he wasn't looking at it from a social inequalities point of view but from the idea that the judicial system should be equal to everyone regardless of who, what or where they came from. I think that point gets lost a bit in the movie, the man isn't only sticking up for the boy but for the right to a fair trial. Its discouraging that just a short time ago people had the mentalities they did, and even thought we have come a long way, those prejudices are still out there and do still effect a lot of people in the world. mfroggyus246
I agree with you. I thought like they were making some kind of social statement. I think the movie was trying to bring people forward or least raise their thinking level when it comes to people not like themselves. I enjoyed the movie. I like how it had German subtitles right after WWII. I thought it kinda' funny. Lovingeveryoe345
There was lots of discrimation in this movie. Racial, gender, poverty and the one that really stuck out to me. At the begining of the film 11 of the jurors had all made up their mind that the defendent was guilty because of his race and where he lives. They stated that they are all like that (deviance) that they are born that way. The defendent live in the "slums" which is another term for low income housing. The jurors assumed he was guilty because this. Until one spoke up and said he grew up there does that make him a crimial. Juror number 8 (Davis) was trying to convience the jurors that a guilty/not guilty verdict should not be place on a defendent because of his background rather that on the evidence that was presented during the trial. Due to the circumstance of their defendent he was not able to afford an attorney who would fight for him and the crime that was done to his father. Juror number 8 proved over and over each bit of evidence was false. Proving this also helped each juror have a different prespect on different cultures and difference between the human race. I enjoy this fill and think is was a wake up call of how things were and the changes that still need to come. GMD246
It was almost like each juror was a separate bad social outlook and number 8 was the non-biased reasoning as to why each of the stereotypes and outlooks was bad. I agree, he gave them all a different perspective on the matter, and also on life itself. If that movie were a real life event, each and every one of those men would have left the room a changed man. -alterend246
Although, the movie is filmed in a jury room, it is pretty intense with a lot of discrimination and prejudice against a boy. It seemed to be easy for the jury room to decide if a young Spanish-American was guilty or innocent of murdering his father, but one jury did not think so. Henry Fonda did not believe that the boy was guilty, he was not 100% sure, but he wanted to make sure everyone was conscious on the decision to send the boy to the electric chair. He questioned the others views and beliefs and as the time was passing, everyone started to think about the situation itself, and not only about the boy and where he came from. I believe that everyone was judging the boy because he came from a poor area, came from a broken home therefore, it is expected that he would turn into a criminal (prejudice). The other jurors were just saying “ guilty” because all the other ones were saying the same thing and maybe they did not want to be the only ones to say “ not guilty” but when Henry Fonda stood up for himself and his beliefs everything changed. Most people are afraid of doing something that is out of their comfortable zone. Doglover246
I enjoyed this movie. The movie did a very good job of illustrating prejudice when one of the juror talked about immigrants as all being the same coming over here and telling us what to do and how they are born that way, they all drink, always fighting and the lie, in reference to the defendant. This example also showed how people with extreme prejudice have these believes about most things that are different to themselves. Also displayed was the difficulty of a jury to separate their personal feelings from the case and how the majority of the jurors simply used the evidence presented by the attorneys instead of thinking through the details of the arguments to determine their accuracy. Glide246
I agree with you. It seemed like alot of these men didn't want to use their brains at the start of the movie. They were relying on their own personal prejudices and facts given to them by an attorney trying to prove the boy was guilty and another attorney, who instead of really trying to defend the boy, probably held many of the same prejudices as the jurors. Its sad to think that a lot of trials probably went this way. YellowSubmarine246
This movie did a great job on highlighting poverty, and racism. At one point in the film they were discussing that because the boy was from the slums, he is guilty. Then the one juror spoke and said that he too was from the slums and that cannot be a reason as to why the boy killed his father. It shows a lot about how people use to think of poverty, and still to do this day. We treat them terribly and place stereotypes on them because they don't have money. The movie, to me, was mainly about racism. When the old man stood up and started spouting off about how all Latino's are no good, and was bashing them just because they were Latino showed just how bad racism is/was. He was putting the blame of all criminally charged Latino's on the rest of them. How is that fair? Personal feelings should never be brought into a criminal court case, it makes things too complicated; as seen in the entire movie. josko246
True, people dont realize that not everyone from the slums or hood are criminals, dirty, or stupid. some of them are born into proverty, have lost jobs, or dont have en education to better themselves because of tragic events in their life's. LadiKay_246
The movie I believe explained very well the mind-set of how people where back then. It's sad seeing that people are so easy to judge one another just off of a person's race. Throw into the fact that a person is from a bad neighborhood or has a bad family life, and people will pretty much just always seem to be against you. During the movie you could see how much prejudice the other eleven men had, except for Henry Fonda's character. Though the other people were bias towards their own decision, he was able to persuade people's views on the Latino kid. This showed that even if people have a predetermined point of view on someone, after talking out the options and showing that a person shouldn't be fully judge on their race that person can be accepted. Red246
Crazy to think that only one man and his voice/opinion can change the thoughts of others. He made them realize how wrong they were, and he only ever questioned what was the norm in that situation. During that time, that kid would have been convicted regardless just because he was Latino. Henry Fonda's character was that voice to change the norm. blub246
I agree. His ability to have the people actually talk about the case a key. Peoples own mindsets had already made the decision of a kids life because they did not want talk about what had happened in the courtroom and the evidence shown was the only facts they needed. For him to take the case to guilty to everyone wanting it to be not guilty is great and very powerful. One man can make a huge difference. Falcons246
I believe this movie explained perfectly how people were back then, and sad to say, how some are even to this day. Each male in the room was an exaggerated to an extent on how males in society are supposed to be. They are tough, short-tempered, and are portrayed as angry individuals. The aspect of race/ethnicity hit hard in this movie, as the one juror portrayed, he labeled an ENTIRE race as bad. He kept stating, "one of them" and "lying is in their blood". This juror had only one thing in mind, and that was to convict this kid just because he was of the Latino decent, and because he was a poor kid from the slums, and nothing more. A lot of them did not see sense, and only wanted to leave early without seeing the facts straight. It's quite sad how people were, and are. This movie hit home in every aspect that is a taboo. blub246
Good point on how men were supposed to be, never really thought of that. Looking back at the movie it does all make sense. They were all worried about their own lives and taking it out on someone else rather than looking into someone elses shoes. It is just sick to know that this probably was not the only trial that was like this, either. Lots of men back then probably just did what they were supposed to do and taught. feb246
yes I agree a most of those men were mostly concerned about there lives and how they just wanted to go home. they really didnt put any hard consideration into the fact that this boy was a human who had his entire future ahead of him. LadiKay_246
The men in the movie were from all walks of life, some living in the upper crust, others coming from less than ideal backgrounds. All of them had opinions, but some of them considered their opinions to be the right ones simply because they were rich or because they were white. "Their kind", "one of them", were common phrases said by one of the jurors, showing that he felt that all individuals of the victims race were essentially trash. The jury was comprised of all males and even though is was back in the 1950's, this shows a glimpse of male supremacy. Some of the men on the jury didn't even want to be there and didn't care at all that the boy was going to die, and all because he was considered a deviant.
I agree that it was because the boy was a deviant. I also got the feeling that some of the men were just lazy and selfish. They didn't want to take the time to think about the facts. It was easier for them to just vote guilty and get on with their lives. I think another factor was conformation. A few of the men seemed hesitant to raise their hands for a guilty vote at first, until they saw how many other hands were raised. YellowSubmarine246
The movie, “12 Angry Men,” shows racism, discrimination, and personal prejudice in several ways. I thought it was apparent that these men are affluent white men in society. The way some of them were acting is a horrible example to set for other men who want to be where they are in life. Many comments were made about the boy just because of his race. One man wanted to vote him guilty because “they” are born liars, have no feelings, are big drinkers, and violent by nature. It was encouraging to see the other men turn their back on him, because I too felt that he was crossing the line. Another comment that was made was, “He don’t speak English well, so he can’t be bright.” I think this is a prejudice that some people still hold today. The movie also touched on poverty and class. One man made the comment that, “slums are breeding grounds for criminals.” YellowSubmarine246
I agree. Voting someone guilty because of a stereotype is not right. The guys person prejudice really came out and not only did everyone else notice it but I believe it opened up his eyes to it also. I feel as if he was so embarrassed that he didn't have much to say the rest of the time and he realized the only thing that was holding him back from saying not guilty was the young males race. So he had his tail between his legs and voted not guilty.
You hit the nail right on the head. It really shows the true character of the men by what they say and also how they said it. The transitions made in their votes really enable me to believe that people can change. They just needed that one person to open their eyes and turn on their brains. Ehtos246
The film shows how societies were in the late 1950's with being a white male to minority. The film also showed me that one man can make a difference. It was not fair that the Latino boy did not have a voice for him. Someone to be on his side and stand up for him. That’s how movements start. One person stands up to the norm of society and their strong feelings help determine permanent outcomes. The movie showed discrimination towards all walks a life. The film also shows that everyone has their own background story. Juror number three seemed to be racist or against anyone not like him like juror 10. But it turns out to be he doesn’t like young kids because they are ungrateful. It is sad that their own lives had to enter the case, because if it hadn’t it would have been a different outcome. But it is hard to keep personal lives out of it. Our personal lives determine what kind of people we are and what kind of decisions we make and why we make them. It also taught us where we needed to go as a people for the future. For the 1950’s this is a great movie because of Hollywood even wanting to point these aspects of American life out. Falcons246
The movie basically showed how racist our country was back in the '50's, and I am very glad that this isn't how our country is now. It is sad to know that our country had these issues in the past. There were many exceptions to the racist views in this movie, especially Henry Fonda's character, and the old man, Mr. Mccardle. I also enjoyed this movie, growing up watching Law & Order and courtroom dramas, I really liked how the movie showed how Juries work. I like how Fonda's character, Davis, was able to dismiss all of the evidence against the defendant, like the old man being able to "run" to the scene, after he has had a stroke and cannot move half of his body. Or, when the woman saw and heard the defendant kill his father, even though El trains make a lot of noise, and she could not see without her glasses. and the knife, and the many knives that look like it. What I didn't like was that all of the jurors brought their personal lives into their judgments on the case. Also, isn't a jury supposed to be a group of your peers? I don't think a bunch of upper/middle class white men are peers to a Spanish-American young man born in the "slums"...
I agree to a certain extent. For Travon Martin trial there was no woman or men of color on his jury. They also came to the conclusion that Zimmerman was not guilty a man twice his size claiming that he was using self defense. While somehow Travon had the sidewalk as a weapon. We still face some cases where they are unfair, just like these mom's getting off with not guilty for killing their children. I can't say that everything has changed but I can agree that we are coming along.
I disagree. Our country is still like this. We have a long ways to go, but I will admit that is has gotten better in some areas. I do agree that all the men brought their personal lives into their decision at first though. In all the best part has to be the fact it only took one person to start the revolution of guilty to not guilty. Ethos246
Watching a movie that was made in the 1950's is definitely something that I do not ever do. This movie was a good one to watch because just from this movie we saw how race, poverty, ethnicity, and women’s rights were all something that was not held as high as it is now. I give major props to the juror #8, not many people would stand up and go against 11 other men on where he stands. At first he may have thought that he was still guilty but the fact that he wanted this to be up for discussion shows a lot about the man. He took a lot of comments and harsh looks for the rest of the men who were arrogant and prejudice. If it was not for him the boy may never had a chance because they only were against him because of his ethnicity. He also was the only one who really opened up and brought into consideration of the boys history and all he has been through in his life since he was five. While on the other side the Juror #7 has very rough relationship with his son and it seemed as if his siding was all from his own personal issues. Just to sum up a few of the others that wanted to convict the boy guilty it was more stereotypical on the outside and not looking in. This movie really opened your eyes to how just unfair the system was when you were not white and taking the stand. As the movie went on and facts were coming out and #8 kept getting more people on his side it started to unravel on how the boy may not have been or looked as guilty as the system made him out to be. If it was not for #8 he would have never had the chance outside of bars. Unfortunately you get a lot of people & jurors who would rather be doing or going other places, such as a baseball game, instead of sitting down and getting the facts together.
The movie showed just how skewed the justice systems was towards minorities in the 50's. A jury is supposed to be made up of twelve of your peers to decide your fate. But in the case of the movie, the defendant was a young Latino male, who lived in the slums. The jury was made up completely of older, affluent white males. This in itself showed how racist and prejudice our nation was back then. There wasn't a single woman or minority on the jury.
It was amazing how many details were overlooked or brushed under the rug during the trial. It makes one wonder what was the basis for that. Was it prejudice and racism? Was it negligence? Or was it simply because they honestly thought it was an open and shut case? Henry Fonda's character was the only one to look past the racial differences and consider that there was a human life in their hands. It was almost just a game to the others.
Fonda's character pointed out key details in the evidence that were overlooked. The knife the father was killed with, was supposed to be rare and one of a kind. Fonda proved that the prosecutor just took the shop keepers word and didn't bother researching the matter further. Fonda was bale to go to a store two blocks from the boys home and buy a knife exactly lie the murder weapon for $6.
He also poked holes in the witnesses statements. The old man clearly could not have ran to the front door in time to see the boy running down the steps 15 seconds after he heard a body hit the floor. The old man had suffered a stroke that left one side of his body paralyzed. This would have made it extremely hard for him to reach the door in time. And the women who supposedly saw the boy stab his father threw the windows of the El train, couldn't possibly seen in clear detail that it was the boy. She normally wore glasses and surely wouldn't have been wearing them to bed.
It really made me think about how society and where we are from can play a big part in how we view the world around us. The jurors let prejudices, stereotypes, and racism effect their votes, instead of just the evidence and the prosecutors and the defendants lawyer arguments. This movie was a perfect choice for the chapter to portray prejudice, racism, and stereotypes.
This was not my first time viewing this movie, but because I feel that this movie is so powerful I chose to watch the whole thing again. I want to first point out the gender of the jury in this movie. This movie consisted of all males not one females opinion. The only female opinion was the witness. Another thing I'd like to point out is the ethnicity within the jury. The jury consisted of all white males whom have never once lived in a place the young latino male was raised, well with the exception of the one guy who grew up in the slums. Being that this movie grew up in what we call poverty automatically puts a label on him. Threw many people's eyes he was poor, devious, rebellious, and so on just because of were he was raised. So that brought about the assuming that automatically this young male killed his father because he doesn't care and he doesn't know any better. But if we take it to the older white male who was successful who had a son to me the situation doesn't look much different. His son actually fought him and to me thats out right disrespectful. So how can you just say a kid from the slums doesn't know any better when a kid from the hills is doing the same thing if not worse? The fact that there was one man standing up and wanting to figure out facts instead of just assuming he was able to sway the whole jury. We shouldn't punish a person because of the color of their skin, proper english that they speak, the place they live, or any of the material stuff. We should go off of fact the real things that matter. Some people in societies feel as if they are superior to others when at the end of the day we all sleep, eat, and have feelings like any other person. No one person is better than the next in my eyes.
I watched this movie and read the book in high school and to this day this movie still moves me. It is a great example of how race, ethnicity, and gender not only plays a major role in society today but also in our grandparents and great grandparents generation as well. When the jury first arrived in the room to come up with the verdict most of them had already decided the boys fate based on his race, appearance, and because he came from a area filled with proverty and crime. They assumed that he was just like other criminals from his neighborhood; only one person was able to see past that and look at him as a normal person just like you and I. There was one man showed prejudice against elderly and another who showed great respect towards the elderly; which shows us that the way people are raised also plays a part in how we view and treat others as we grow up. Most of these guys were white males, there were no women or African Americans present at all. They had one guy who used personal issues with his son to convict they young boy on trail. Over all this movie showed me how race, ethnicity, and gender play major roles in society. they determine where you get a job, live, how people view you as a person, and even how you are raised. Even though times have changed and things have gotten a little better we still have to put up with these issues. Its very sad and disappointing that we just cant look at each individual as a human who eats, sleeps, and breathe just like the next person. This movie was truly moving. Ladikay_246
Group conformity is when groups influence the behavior of their members by promoting conformity or "fitting in." In 12 Angry Men I believe this played a part in the final verdict. Each man came from a different back ground and appeared to be going through the motions of being on a jury and not really trying to think for themselves. Because of the "drone effect" the prosecutor could easily tell them what to think and how to vote. One man out of twelve had the foresight to actually question the evidence as it was given to see if there was reasonable doubt. Granted this film was set back in I believe the 50's when social norms were somewhat different, but the root problems were there just as they still are today. Prejudice was there for a few of the twelve men and they were open and very vocal about it by using terms like “those people" and "them" in reference to lower income and ethnicity of the boy. They stereo typed the boy and were bias. They also had other agendas mentally that hindered a fair vote as well as it was extremely hot in the deliberating room which made all the men very irritable. The boy on trial was only 18, lived with an abusive father in the slums, and had an all-around rough life. The evidence against him was an old man testifying he heard an argument where the boys’ father punched him multiple times and then the boy said he was going to kill him, an older neighbor lady 60 feet away that said she saw the boy stab his father in the chest, and a unique/rare switch blade knife as the murder weapon. Multiple times they used the term open and shut case, but because one man voted not guilty and got the rest of the men to actually think things finally started to turn around. They started deliberating and talking about the evidence and what they found is that they could poke holes in every part of the prosecution. The man that voted not guilty even went out and bought the very same knife the father was killed with to persuade the rest that maybe there was more to the evidence that needed to be looked at. From there it was only a matter of time. The rest of the jury members started to lose confidence in their original vote of guilty and started to have reasonable doubts that the kid killed his father. Admittedly no one really knows if the boy was truly innocent or truly guilty, but because of how our laws are written if there is any reasonable doubt, that person cannot be found guilty. This really can be positive or negative though. What it boils down to is the same thing that can fix 99 problems in life out of 100….MONEY. If you have the money to get the very best lawyer chances are you can literally get away with murder. Because this boy had little or no money his lawyer sucked, and if it wasn’t for one man having the kahunas to go against the crowd he would have most definitely been executed. He will probably never know how extremely close to the death penalty he truly was. The question I still have is was the boy innocent or guilty. I am undecided.
I found this movie to be quite interesting. It showed how things like race, gender,personal bias and discrimination played a huge role in not only our society but also in our judicial system at that time. For instance, the bigger of of the 12 men had such a personal bias against the kid on trial just because he had a son who was also a problem child like they thought of the defendent.Discrimination also played a huge role as well. The older of the men had given an opinion and was told by another of the angry men that his theory could not be believed because nobody believes the words of old people. That itself was discrimination against the elderly. The fact that there were no women or even a single minority on the jury made it very hard for the kid to get a fair verdict at first. The one angry guy was very racist and just kept throwing around the fact that " that these kids come from the slumps and crime is all they know" when in fact there are kids who came from the slumps who did not commit murder. I applaud the one guy for standing up and disagreeing because it actually saved a young mans life.
ReplyDeleteIt's sad how even today this still goes on in most courtrooms but people like the first guy to say "Not guilty" are making a difference!
Jessme246
I agree there was a lot of discrimination in the movie, and each man had some type of target on there back, they were all able to pick each other apart and find the weakness of the other, I believe this is what ultimately determined the outcome, the fact that each man was discriminated against and their own 'flaws" were brought to their attention, it made them see things in a different aspect.
Delete-heartsiized246
Agreed i did notice that they kind of took turns at each other to prove directly to how they were discriminating against the kid. Whether it was the man with the glasses, or the man from the slums, I thought that was very clever of them to make it almost personally to each other.
Delete-WISC_hurdler246
I thought this one guy knew everything , but he didn’t. He still thought the kid was guilty even when talk about the evidence because he had a personal prejudice towards this kid. It killed him to vote not guilty at the end of the movie. It look like to me that they were at each other throats the entire time. They argued about the case and it got to a point that they started personal attacks against each other. It is amazing what happens when you get 12 guys in a room. I think when you have a jury you need at least 4 women in the room because I think there would be less fighting if you have 4 women and 8 men in the room instead of it being all men.
DeleteKevin246
I had forgotten about the discrimation of the older gentlemen. He was infact very wise and had a lot of knowlege. Our eldery population is larger than ever today and they are treated differently because of their age. I think it would be interesting too to see if it had been a women in the film. Althought there was the statement of one women even though she was not shown on screen. Her statement was the last to be proven wrong, therefore showing that even a women had a high stand in society that a boy of latin decent. GMD246
DeleteI thought this movie was inspiring in a way, it goes to show that if you stand out and say how you feel regardless of what other people say or think ultimately you are winning. I thought it was interesting that this movie did in fact have something to do with race and gender, I honestly didn't pay attention to this fact until it was brought up in class. I also found it interesting that the leader of this group who stood and said not guilty found a way to target each of the men and make it personal, by bringing up different facts about the case he made each one of the men see it in a different point of view and perhaps made the men a little less closed minded. Its interesting to see how different things were in the past compared to now when it comes to race and gender, and it makes me wonder how different things would have been if there happened to be a woman on the jury then or someone of different ethnicity.
ReplyDelete-heartsiized246
Some of the juryers thought one juryer was telling stories, instead of trying to talk about all the details. It is sad that some people bring their personal bias to the court room. You shouldn’t bring their personal bias to the court room. I think they want to convict that guy because he was Latio and I think that is really sad that people in the 1950s had that type of prejudice. One of the guys got caught in a lie when they asked him questions. Facts are supposed to determine the case not personal prejudice. It shouldn’t be a personal things when you’re in a jury.
DeleteKevin246
I think you make good points. I didn't think of it much even though it was right in front of my face. Even though we didn't live that era we still understand the way things were and in doing so we sometimes miss this obvious cause we are so use to it. It is interesting to think what it would have been like given one of the people would have been a female or someone of different ethnicity.
DeleteNick246
I agree, if there was some more diversity in the jury panel the first vote to convict the boy would not have been one sided. It is horrible that so many of the jurors brought in some form of personal bias into the courtroom. On phase that a lot of the jurors said was , "it is obvious he is guilty i could tell form the beginning of the case." that just shows that the jurors had already made up their mind even before they saw the facts to prove the boy guilty. -Tyler246
DeleteIt is crazy to think how different sociology or social norms were back then and it was not that long ago. When this movie was made in April of 1957, which was only 56 years ago! It was about a group of people serving jury duty in a murder trial where a kid of Hispanic ethnicity was accused of killing his own father with his knife. One man goes against all other 11 jury members just because he had the decency to over look the fact the kid "allegedly" accused of the crime was considered a minority and was a victim of Social inequality of the time while everyone else just went along with the racist stereotype. But slowly but surly he got everyone to see the light and overlook the differences. It was pretty obvious how everyone was just so confident in the racial stereotype, they didn't even care to give this kid 5 minutes of their time. Not to mention the self-centered impatient guy with the hat who constantly was egging people on about leaving, was wiling to put the kid on the chair just because he wanted to go to the baseball game. All the jurors were white, there were no minorities just one recent immigrant but of European decent. There were no women either, which is plausible to think that with both involved it would have given the boy a better chance from the beginning, both being discriminated against for years. A few of them kept saying things like people of poverty where more likely to commit crimes, which they called the slums and were saying things like "those people". But one of the jurors was from the so called "Slums" and proved just from where you are from doesn't mean you commit crime. Most of the men were either just agreeing with what looked obvious from afar or were just too timid to stand of for what was right. But there were 2 main Extremist in the jury that really only cared about their specific discrimination and would not budge no matter how much of the evidence was proved wrong. One was mostly about race and the other was with children all together. There is nothing wrong with truly believing in something and not changing your mind about it and that makes it 100% your opinion but forcing it on others is not the right way to approach things which they found out as soon as a few of the jurors where getting tired of the obnoxious extremists and was going to "Lay him out" if he didn't stop yelling. But all it took was one man just stop and wait a minute (and quite cleverly at most times) to overlook all the kids social difference and realize that he is just a child with a rough life and that he deserves a chance instead of just succumbing to the ignorant social stigmas of that time period (which was most likely a normal of that time period).
ReplyDelete-WISC_hurdler246
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteOur society has come a long way since the making of this film. We now have people of different race and enthicity and women serving on a jury. It is sad in a way that there is so much discrimination in this film and that was the norm then. We have come a long way and still have a ways to come. GMD246
DeleteI found at the start of the film that permeated murder is a serious offense even in the 1950s. I found shocking that one of the juryers would say that “a murder case is exciting”. It has to be 12-0 to convince someone of a crime in the 1950s. I couldn’t believe that 11 guys at first decided in 5 minutes that the murder was guilty before even talking about it for at least an hour. I think they were in a rush to get out of there. I learned back in the 1950s children used to had to call their dad sir. I think sometimes witnesses can lie in court and be wrong. You can look at somebody and tell that they are lying. The one guy in the hat only care about going to a baseball game instead of doing what was right for justice. I think some of these guys bought their personal bias to the court room. I think you should never bring your personal bias when you are in a jury.
ReplyDeleteKevin246
If I recall correctly, they had been in court six days and heard several witnesses, so it wasn't decided in the first 5 minutes of the case, only five minutes after they entered the juror's room. Yes, sometimes witnesses lie, whether it's to make themselves look better, protect someone else, or even to hurt the defendant, which is terrible. You can't always tell if someone is lying, though. Sometimes it gets easier if you know the person for a long time, but not always. But you're right, bias should never come into the courtroom. -Moony246
DeleteI couldn't agree with you more Kevin! All these men were so focused on getting out of there that they didn't want to give the man a chance to explain why he chose not guilty. I believe the one man was excited to pull the switch on this boy. That to me is very cold blooded and hard for me to digest. There was a lot of personal bias through out this film. Great work! CooCoo246
DeleteI felt that most of the people didn't think of the person being tried as much as they thought about what was happening and what had happened. Like the one man who plead not guilty at the beginning said the killer (boy) had just become a man in age and his father did hit him closed handed on more then one occasion. Also I think witnesses may believe they say something that was close to what they think but not entirely what they thought. They say when people try to recall memory that they convince themselves of untrue small details to piece in a whole story around the things they do remember. So I have herd.
DeleteNick246
I liked the fact that the first man to say not guilty wasn't because he thought he wasn't, simply that there was room for doubt. It showed that he wasn't so close-minded, just to base his vote on race or age. He was smart about bringing the topic up, pointing out contradictions left and right. He was patient when people interrupted him, and answered them calmly and logically. I liked that a lot. These people, most of them, brought their personal bias into the juror's room, and that clouded their judgement, which almost allowed a possibly innocent boy to be sent to the electric chair. I would have hated to see that happen, but I'm glad someone stood up and said something. He called everyone out on their bias and made sure they understood every bit of evidence perfectly before casting a vote. I liked most that Juror...Seven, I believe, wanted justice, and only justice, to go on. -Moony246
ReplyDeleteI found these aspects of the movie interesting as well, the way the man who's verdict was not guilty carried himself said a lot about his character, he made the other jurors think, he brought other possibilities to the table. This movie really makes you think about the reality of the court system, sometimes innocent people's lived are in the hands of people who are closed minded and not willing to think outside the box, they let their prejudice thoughts cloud their judgement.
Delete-heartsiized246
The personal bias did kind of cloud the judgement but helped make the movie and the point. One man can change all those other jurors into saying not guilty. All the men were stereotyping this boy because how he was raised and where he came from. Which in a way is prejudice. I also would have hated to see this boy go to the chair. Although one man was excited to pull the switch. CooCoo246
DeleteI agree I liked the way that the one juror stood alone and voted not guilty because he was not sure if the boy was guilty or not. I think that is he had not calmly presented his points of doubt and not gave in to the peer pressure of the group, the young boy would have been given the death penalty. It was very courageous of the young boy to stand up to the others the dig deeper into the case and testimonies to see if what the witnesses had to say made sense.-Tyler246
DeleteI agree with you. The first man to choose not guilty didn’t necessarily think that the young boy was not guilty, just felt that he wanted to hear all the reasons and think through the conviction logically. He said himself that someone’s life is on the line, and he didn’t want to put the wrong person in the chair. Bullardml13-246
DeleteThere are 11 guilty vs 1 non-guilty. The look on all the jurors face when the one man said "not guilty." There was discrimination against the old man who had an opinion and the juror who said "not guilty." At first I didn't believe this had anything to with the boys race, until it was brought up towards the end of the movie. I thought it had to do more with his ethnicity. The fact that he came from a family who had no mother, and a father who was a abusive, this made the boy himself a bad person. That's what the jurors thought, except the one man who wanted to open the eyes of the others. It's funny how the eleven guilty jurors wanted to talk how violence was that of a bad thing but then you had one of the guilty jurors talking about his son and how he was gonna make a man out of him. All because his son walked away from a fight when he was 9, the man wanted to instill violence in him. I believe this man had an authoritarian personality. Something that can't be changed because he was set in his ways. Something that was said that caught my eye in the movie was when one of the men said this, "Prejudiced always obscures the truth." I believe this to be true for this movie and for so much in today's life. It amazed me how one man changed 11 guilty votes to 12 not guilty.
ReplyDeleteCooCoo246- this is my blog and forgot to post my username.
DeleteI also found the part about the one juror making a man out of his son or break him into trying very interesting. This was a great example of our societal beliefs about gender and how men should be tough. I have found myself thinking about this topic a lot since I had children and knowing that the way we as parents treat our children will directly affect their views of how men and women should be.
DeleteGlide246
This movie was a good example how times change and provides good evidence why a change was better. There were many different areas of prejudice in this film as well as gender. I would believe that most of the men in the film that were the angriest would have not been that way if there were women present as well as the women being equal in rights of how they stand in society. The fact that gender rights and minority rights were not like they are today gave more complications as far as being equal to all people. If there was less social prejudice the people may not have all been Caucasian males and even then they would have had a different view for that society would have been less prejudice. It shows that given enough people someone is bound to be more open minded and in my opinion more of a well rounded human.
ReplyDeleteNick246
I agree with you Nick that times have changed. We have more Women and people of other race than just white Men. That movie took place in the 1950s because all of the people in the Jury were White Men. It is always good to have Women and Men in the Jury because there will likely be less prejudice. With all 12 Men in that Jury doing the movie there was a lot of prejudice. I’m glad we come a long way in this country with our prejudice. We still have prejudice now in America, but it is not as bad as it was in the 1950s.
DeleteKevin246
I agree that the film did show how different people were back then even sixty years ago. Especially with the part of the jury being all white men, and no females like you mentioned. It's crazy to believe what basically what was not that long ago how people were. Society as a whole has made giant improvements from what it use to be like. From being close-minded people to now accepting people from all types of backgrounds.
DeleteRed246
Can you imagine what a world of difference if the jury had women on it? Or if it had minority groups? This movie showed how influential the white male was back then. The movie shown this about one case. Imagine all the other cases back then that were affected by jurors not talking about the case they were assigned to and fulfilling their job to their best ability because of personal biased. How sad.
DeleteFalcons246
I think that the movies showed that prejudice effected the logical thought process of several people. I found it crazy that the 11 of the 12 jurors where just going to convict a young man of murder on poor evidence because they had preconceived of the boy before the trial even started. These preconceived ideas about his race, ethnicity, and age lead the jurors to take the evidence about the case at face value. They did not want to dig deeper because if they did it might hurt the evidence that was presented in their favor. I think that the jury was so one sided against the boy is because the jury panel so similar. They were all adult white males with a steady job. There was no diversity to look at the case in a different point of view. I think what troubles me the most is that a couple of the men just voted without having a good reason. For example the guy with the baseball tickets. He just want to leave to see the game and didn't care about the out come. Another was the marketing guy who's reply to most questions asked to him was "I don't know". Then the men would were extremely prejudice against the boy use logical fallacies to argue their side, like attacking other peoples personality instead of the point that they were making. I cannot even imagine how many people were wrongfully convicted because of jury panels back then. -Tyler246
ReplyDeleteSad that the jurors would choose to convict him based solely on his race. It made me wonder how many real life “criminals” were convicted solely on their race! Luckily our nation has come far, and if the jurors were around today they would be of different genders and different races. Bullardml13-246
DeleteWe have progressively gotten better as a nation with our judicial system but imagine even before this time when people were burned at the stake, stoned or killed just based on assumptions or prejudices. in a way this movie shows a bit of progression while at the same time just how far we needed to go towards change. mfroggyus246
DeleteWhen I first start watching a film, I like to be taken in within the first couple minutes of it. With this movie, the beginning throughout its entirety was intense. The beginning was an assembly of 12 jurors who sat through a case. This case involved a young Latin boy, who (supposedly) stabbed his father. This movie's setting was in the 1950's, and in that era. The courts were comprised of mostly older wealthy white men. This didn't change in this scenario either; however, when the juror in charge wanted to know everyone's verdict. There was one juror who chose not-guilty. I am sure it was a choice, that many didn't see coming. In this setting, race and ethnicity were against the Latin boy. The juror who chose not guilty, through analysis of everyone's statement who was on the bench. He persuaded all of the others to plead not guilty, too. This young boy more than likely thought he was going to be charged murder; however, with the aid of the jurors he didn't see that outcome. I believe it was men like the odd juror who would shape out American is today. 60 years ago too, their were no women in the court system either. They were told to do the cleaning and cooking at home. Would I recommend this movie to others, yes. I would recommend it to others, for the how America was and then compare it to todays society. starburst246
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this movie very much. How one man stood alone in his belief that the defendant was not guilty. Against 11 others saying guilty he made all of them see further into the evidence that was brought. As there were at least 3 jurors that were prejudice in the room that was making the convincing a little more difficult. Alluring was the oldest of all the jurors, he stood up against a gentleman who belittled him horribly. He pointed out some wonderful evidence in regards to the eye glasses a witness wears. As for the ending, getting the last "not guilty" gentleman he broke down seeing finally he was just saying guilty because of his relationship to his own son. Labrador246
ReplyDeleteIts crazy that just one guy out of a group of twelve was able to persuade the others into going over all the evidence piece by piece and giving this boy a fair trial. All of these guys started out voting all guilty and really sticking to their vote, but then you can see how when they slowly start to piece together the evidence against this kid that they can tell it wasn't very legit evidence and that they were looking past what race he was or by where he was from. kmoney246
DeleteI think sometimes all it takes is one voice, one person who is passionate enough about a cause they can persuade more people to thinking the way they do. Once one person convinces another it multiplies from there. I also feel that the men were to worried about getting on with their life outside of being jurors than they were about putting someone to death. Obviously one of them felt another persons life was more important than a baseball game or whatever else they all were leaving to do. mfroggyus246
DeleteIt's so cool that one man made a huge difference. It takes one person to start a chain reaction, which is what this movie showed as well. When you stand firm to what you are saying, you can make a difference!
Deletejosko246
All it takes is for one person to stand up and say something to be able to change the mindset of other people. I agree on how it was cool to see the one guy stand up against the other people, if he would of not been there then everyone would go on with their ways. The movie was a great example of standing up for what a person believes in, and to be able to support their opinion with examples and reasoning.
DeleteRed246
That really is all it takes for change to happen. Just one voice to stand up for the one's who cannot do it themselves. It's crazy to know that since then we have come so far in being tolerant of others. Anyone can make a difference if they stand up for what they believe in. We are powerful beings, not everyone believes in themselves. When you can't do that, you can't in others.
Deleteblub246
This video also made me realize that all it takes is one person to stick to their beliefs, to affect change. While all the other jurors were so sure that the Latino boy had done it, based on the flimsy evidence the prosecutor presented and based on their prejudices towards "those kinds", one person was able to point out details that they had simply refused to see, because surely he couldn't be guilty.
Deletelilblack94gt246
I enjoyed watching this movie. I think it takes courage to stand along against 11 other men who believe that the kid being charged with murder was guilty. It is not easy to stand along and try to changed other people’s mind. There were 2 guys that just wanted to get out of there and thought he was guilty no matter what. One of the guys was wearing a hat and all he was interested in is going to a baseball game instead of doing what was right. The other guys was wearing straps and a long-tie. It killed him at the end to vote not guilty because he believed that kid was guilty no matter what. That guy was prejudice against that kid because he was Latino and had no interested in doing the right thing. I think it is really sad that some people would let their prejudice get in the way of doing the right thing for justice.
ReplyDeleteKevin246
I found this film very interesting. It’s a blast from the past! Hard to believe that only 50 years ago this racial discrimination was happening. Not only racial discrimination, but gender as well. Some of the men treated the boy like a dog, or something even worse, someone who didn’t deserve rights. They didn’t know this young man, but a few of them refused to believe that there was any chance he could be innocent. What happened to being innocent until proven guilty? I also wondered if that were part of the witness bias as well, were they all being racist as well when saying that they heard the kid say he was going to kill his dad. Or the lady across the street that saw the young boy murder his dad, did she just say the things she said because of the boys race? This movie opens your eyes, and makes you realize that how far our nation has come in 50 years. If that were a courtroom today, you would see many genders and races. Which makes things more fair for the accused. I wonder how many “criminals” were convicted due to the race, and in actuality were innocent. Bullardml13-246
ReplyDelete50 years really isn't that long ago and its crazy to think how far we've come from how bad discrimination used to be. These days if this case would of happened you would of seen a way bigger difference with there being a mix of men and women and I'm sure more then one person would of voted not guilty. It is an eye opener to think how many other people were wrongly accused of crimes they didn't commit only because of what race they were and them basically not getting a chance at being proved not guilty. kmoney246
DeleteIt definitely shows how far our country has came. From the slaves, to the women just being in the house to cook and clean, and to today's society where there is no discrimination. I concur the men were mean to the boy because he was of a different ethnic background. I applaud the man that stood against the others and voted not guilty. Then he went through analytic measures to prove his innocence. Today, that wouldn't be so odd as it was back then. starburst246
DeleteThis movie really did show how far society has come about accepting change! It is so weird to me that my grandparents lived in a time when blacks and whites couldn't even go to the same school. Discrimination was such a huge problem 50 years ago, and today it's something that isn't really thought about unless it's an extreme circumstance.
Deletejosko246
I agree. Watching this movie mad me sad to realize that only 50 years ago, innocent might have been convicted just based on their race and where they were from. All because people let racial, gender, and economic differences get in the way. For the majority of the jurors to simply find it impossible for this Latino boy to be innocent of killing his father. it really blew my mind!
Deletelilblack94gt246
I actually really enjoyed watching this film 12 Angry Men. There was the one 18 year old boy who was getting charged for first degree murder who had supposedly killed his father with a switch blade knife and there were two different witnesses that claimed they saw him do it. It would seem like an open and close case and that the kid for sure had done it, but when it came down to choosing guilty or not guilty one of the men said he didn't think the boy had done it and wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. I think that would take a lot to be the only one to vote opposite of everybody else because when your in a group like that you kind of get persuaded to just along with everyone else based on what everyone else is voting for. You can tell that the votes were mostly based off of his race because he was Mexican and when one of the guys was talking about him he addressed him as "a kid like that," or "these people are dangerous," which would be stereotyping based off of where he was from and his race.Its crazy to see how big of a change there has been between then and now having to do with racism. Its like in Martin Luther King Jr's speech when he said "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." What if that guy wouldn't of been there to vote not guilty? That kid would of died for something he didn't do and their votes were only based off of what kind of person he was and not by the facts. Then in the movie when he said "he never will hear you," which pretty much meant that no matter what you say to him he's always going to stick with the same thing. Its sad that back then these kinds of things happened all the time and that not everyone was treated equally just because of what ethnicity they were. kmoney246
ReplyDeleteIt is not only "back then" that these kinds of things happened. It is clear that if someone rich kills the penalty will not be as severe (such as the OJ Simpson case) comparing to someone that has struggles in life at. If someone comes from a poor area is expected to be a criminal. Doglover246
DeleteIt's really sad that most of those prejudices are still present in society today. Just because someone comes from a slum they are automatically labeled as a criminal or a deviant, even though they cant help where they were born. Even skin color comes in to play on whether to determine if they are trustworthy or not.
Delete-alterend246
I thought not only did the actions of the men in the film show many different versions of discrimination toward each other and towards the accused but the writing and casting made it that much more evident the prejudices of the time. Why wasn't it a white man or a women on trial instead of a hispanic boy? Someone along the line made that decision. The idea that one man would stand alone in his convictions that the boy could be innocent was almost appauling to the men either because of his race, age, social standing and suggested deviance. The man who initially stood alone had the right idea, he wasn't looking at it from a social inequalities point of view but from the idea that the judicial system should be equal to everyone regardless of who, what or where they came from. I think that point gets lost a bit in the movie, the man isn't only sticking up for the boy but for the right to a fair trial. Its discouraging that just a short time ago people had the mentalities they did, and even thought we have come a long way, those prejudices are still out there and do still effect a lot of people in the world. mfroggyus246
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I thought like they were making some kind of social statement. I think the movie was trying to bring people forward or least raise their thinking level when it comes to people not like themselves. I enjoyed the movie. I like how it had German subtitles right after WWII. I thought it kinda' funny. Lovingeveryoe345
DeleteThere was lots of discrimation in this movie. Racial, gender, poverty and the one that really stuck out to me. At the begining of the film 11 of the jurors had all made up their mind that the defendent was guilty because of his race and where he lives. They stated that they are all like that (deviance) that they are born that way. The defendent live in the "slums" which is another term for low income housing. The jurors assumed he was guilty because this. Until one spoke up and said he grew up there does that make him a crimial. Juror number 8 (Davis) was trying to convience the jurors that a guilty/not guilty verdict should not be place on a defendent because of his background rather that on the evidence that was presented during the trial. Due to the circumstance of their defendent he was not able to afford an attorney who would fight for him and the crime that was done to his father. Juror number 8 proved over and over each bit of evidence was false. Proving this also helped each juror have a different prespect on different cultures and difference between the human race. I enjoy this fill and think is was a wake up call of how things were and the changes that still need to come. GMD246
ReplyDeleteIt was almost like each juror was a separate bad social outlook and number 8 was the non-biased reasoning as to why each of the stereotypes and outlooks was bad. I agree, he gave them all a different perspective on the matter, and also on life itself. If that movie were a real life event, each and every one of those men would have left the room a changed man.
Delete-alterend246
Although, the movie is filmed in a jury room, it is pretty intense with a lot of discrimination and prejudice against a boy. It seemed to be easy for the jury room to decide if a young Spanish-American was guilty or innocent of murdering his father, but one jury did not think so. Henry Fonda did not believe that the boy was guilty, he was not 100% sure, but he wanted to make sure everyone was conscious on the decision to send the boy to the electric chair. He questioned the others views and beliefs and as the time was passing, everyone started to think about the situation itself, and not only about the boy and where he came from. I believe that everyone was judging the boy because he came from a poor area, came from a broken home therefore, it is expected that he would turn into a criminal (prejudice). The other jurors were just saying “ guilty” because all the other ones were saying the same thing and maybe they did not want to be the only ones to say “ not guilty” but when Henry Fonda stood up for himself and his beliefs everything changed. Most people are afraid of doing something that is out of their comfortable zone. Doglover246
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this movie. The movie did a very good job of illustrating prejudice when one of the juror talked about immigrants as all being the same coming over here and telling us what to do and how they are born that way, they all drink, always fighting and the lie, in reference to the defendant. This example also showed how people with extreme prejudice have these believes about most things that are different to themselves. Also displayed was the difficulty of a jury to separate their personal feelings from the case and how the majority of the jurors simply used the evidence presented by the attorneys instead of thinking through the details of the arguments to determine their accuracy.
ReplyDeleteGlide246
I agree with you. It seemed like alot of these men didn't want to use their brains at the start of the movie. They were relying on their own personal prejudices and facts given to them by an attorney trying to prove the boy was guilty and another attorney, who instead of really trying to defend the boy, probably held many of the same prejudices as the jurors. Its sad to think that a lot of trials probably went this way. YellowSubmarine246
DeleteThis movie did a great job on highlighting poverty, and racism. At one point in the film they were discussing that because the boy was from the slums, he is guilty. Then the one juror spoke and said that he too was from the slums and that cannot be a reason as to why the boy killed his father. It shows a lot about how people use to think of poverty, and still to do this day. We treat them terribly and place stereotypes on them because they don't have money. The movie, to me, was mainly about racism. When the old man stood up and started spouting off about how all Latino's are no good, and was bashing them just because they were Latino showed just how bad racism is/was. He was putting the blame of all criminally charged Latino's on the rest of them. How is that fair? Personal feelings should never be brought into a criminal court case, it makes things too complicated; as seen in the entire movie.
ReplyDeletejosko246
True, people dont realize that not everyone from the slums or hood are criminals, dirty, or stupid. some of them are born into proverty, have lost jobs, or dont have en education to better themselves because of tragic events in their life's. LadiKay_246
DeleteThe movie I believe explained very well the mind-set of how people where back then. It's sad seeing that people are so easy to judge one another just off of a person's race. Throw into the fact that a person is from a bad neighborhood or has a bad family life, and people will pretty much just always seem to be against you. During the movie you could see how much prejudice the other eleven men had, except for Henry Fonda's character. Though the other people were bias towards their own decision, he was able to persuade people's views on the Latino kid. This showed that even if people have a predetermined point of view on someone, after talking out the options and showing that a person shouldn't be fully judge on their race that person can be accepted.
ReplyDeleteRed246
Crazy to think that only one man and his voice/opinion can change the thoughts of others. He made them realize how wrong they were, and he only ever questioned what was the norm in that situation. During that time, that kid would have been convicted regardless just because he was Latino. Henry Fonda's character was that voice to change the norm.
Deleteblub246
I agree. His ability to have the people actually talk about the case a key. Peoples own mindsets had already made the decision of a kids life because they did not want talk about what had happened in the courtroom and the evidence shown was the only facts they needed. For him to take the case to guilty to everyone wanting it to be not guilty is great and very powerful. One man can make a huge difference.
DeleteFalcons246
I believe this movie explained perfectly how people were back then, and sad to say, how some are even to this day. Each male in the room was an exaggerated to an extent on how males in society are supposed to be. They are tough, short-tempered, and are portrayed as angry individuals. The aspect of race/ethnicity hit hard in this movie, as the one juror portrayed, he labeled an ENTIRE race as bad. He kept stating, "one of them" and "lying is in their blood". This juror had only one thing in mind, and that was to convict this kid just because he was of the Latino decent, and because he was a poor kid from the slums, and nothing more. A lot of them did not see sense, and only wanted to leave early without seeing the facts straight. It's quite sad how people were, and are. This movie hit home in every aspect that is a taboo.
ReplyDeleteblub246
Good point on how men were supposed to be, never really thought of that. Looking back at the movie it does all make sense. They were all worried about their own lives and taking it out on someone else rather than looking into someone elses shoes. It is just sick to know that this probably was not the only trial that was like this, either. Lots of men back then probably just did what they were supposed to do and taught.
Deletefeb246
yes I agree a most of those men were mostly concerned about there lives and how they just wanted to go home. they really didnt put any hard consideration into the fact that this boy was a human who had his entire future ahead of him. LadiKay_246
DeleteThe men in the movie were from all walks of life, some living in the upper crust, others coming from less than ideal backgrounds. All of them had opinions, but some of them considered their opinions to be the right ones simply because they were rich or because they were white. "Their kind", "one of them", were common phrases said by one of the jurors, showing that he felt that all individuals of the victims race were essentially trash. The jury was comprised of all males and even though is was back in the 1950's, this shows a glimpse of male supremacy. Some of the men on the jury didn't even want to be there and didn't care at all that the boy was going to die, and all because he was considered a deviant.
ReplyDelete^-alterend246
DeleteI agree that it was because the boy was a deviant. I also got the feeling that some of the men were just lazy and selfish. They didn't want to take the time to think about the facts. It was easier for them to just vote guilty and get on with their lives. I think another factor was conformation. A few of the men seemed hesitant to raise their hands for a guilty vote at first, until they saw how many other hands were raised. YellowSubmarine246
DeleteThe movie, “12 Angry Men,” shows racism, discrimination, and personal prejudice in several ways. I thought it was apparent that these men are affluent white men in society. The way some of them were acting is a horrible example to set for other men who want to be where they are in life. Many comments were made about the boy just because of his race. One man wanted to vote him guilty because “they” are born liars, have no feelings, are big drinkers, and violent by nature. It was encouraging to see the other men turn their back on him, because I too felt that he was crossing the line. Another comment that was made was, “He don’t speak English well, so he can’t be bright.” I think this is a prejudice that some people still hold today. The movie also touched on poverty and class. One man made the comment that, “slums are breeding grounds for criminals.” YellowSubmarine246
ReplyDeleteI agree. Voting someone guilty because of a stereotype is not right. The guys person prejudice really came out and not only did everyone else notice it but I believe it opened up his eyes to it also. I feel as if he was so embarrassed that he didn't have much to say the rest of the time and he realized the only thing that was holding him back from saying not guilty was the young males race. So he had his tail between his legs and voted not guilty.
DeleteElbow-knee_246
You hit the nail right on the head. It really shows the true character of the men by what they say and also how they said it. The transitions made in their votes really enable me to believe that people can change. They just needed that one person to open their eyes and turn on their brains.
DeleteEhtos246
The film shows how societies were in the late 1950's with being a white male to minority. The film also showed me that one man can make a difference. It was not fair that the Latino boy did not have a voice for him. Someone to be on his side and stand up for him. That’s how movements start. One person stands up to the norm of society and their strong feelings help determine permanent outcomes. The movie showed discrimination towards all walks a life. The film also shows that everyone has their own background story. Juror number three seemed to be racist or against anyone not like him like juror 10. But it turns out to be he doesn’t like young kids because they are ungrateful. It is sad that their own lives had to enter the case, because if it hadn’t it would have been a different outcome. But it is hard to keep personal lives out of it. Our personal lives determine what kind of people we are and what kind of decisions we make and why we make them. It also taught us where we needed to go as a people for the future. For the 1950’s this is a great movie because of Hollywood even wanting to point these aspects of American life out.
ReplyDeleteFalcons246
The movie basically showed how racist our country was back in the '50's, and I am very glad that this isn't how our country is now. It is sad to know that our country had these issues in the past. There were many exceptions to the racist views in this movie, especially Henry Fonda's character, and the old man, Mr. Mccardle. I also enjoyed this movie, growing up watching Law & Order and courtroom dramas, I really liked how the movie showed how Juries work. I like how Fonda's character, Davis, was able to dismiss all of the evidence against the defendant, like the old man being able to "run" to the scene, after he has had a stroke and cannot move half of his body. Or, when the woman saw and heard the defendant kill his father, even though El trains make a lot of noise, and she could not see without her glasses. and the knife, and the many knives that look like it. What I didn't like was that all of the jurors brought their personal lives into their judgments on the case. Also, isn't a jury supposed to be a group of your peers? I don't think a bunch of upper/middle class white men are peers to a Spanish-American young man born in the "slums"...
ReplyDeleteBodyCall246
I agree to a certain extent. For Travon Martin trial there was no woman or men of color on his jury. They also came to the conclusion that Zimmerman was not guilty a man twice his size claiming that he was using self defense. While somehow Travon had the sidewalk as a weapon. We still face some cases where they are unfair, just like these mom's getting off with not guilty for killing their children. I can't say that everything has changed but I can agree that we are coming along.
DeleteElbow-knee_246
I disagree. Our country is still like this. We have a long ways to go, but I will admit that is has gotten better in some areas.
DeleteI do agree that all the men brought their personal lives into their decision at first though.
In all the best part has to be the fact it only took one person to start the revolution of guilty to not guilty.
Ethos246
Watching a movie that was made in the 1950's is definitely something that I do not ever do. This movie was a good one to watch because just from this movie we saw how race, poverty, ethnicity, and women’s rights were all something that was not held as high as it is now. I give major props to the juror #8, not many people would stand up and go against 11 other men on where he stands. At first he may have thought that he was still guilty but the fact that he wanted this to be up for discussion shows a lot about the man. He took a lot of comments and harsh looks for the rest of the men who were arrogant and prejudice. If it was not for him the boy may never had a chance because they only were against him because of his ethnicity. He also was the only one who really opened up and brought into consideration of the boys history and all he has been through in his life since he was five. While on the other side the Juror #7 has very rough relationship with his son and it seemed as if his siding was all from his own personal issues. Just to sum up a few of the others that wanted to convict the boy guilty it was more stereotypical on the outside and not looking in. This movie really opened your eyes to how just unfair the system was when you were not white and taking the stand. As the movie went on and facts were coming out and #8 kept getting more people on his side it started to unravel on how the boy may not have been or looked as guilty as the system made him out to be. If it was not for #8 he would have never had the chance outside of bars. Unfortunately you get a lot of people & jurors who would rather be doing or going other places, such as a baseball game, instead of sitting down and getting the facts together.
ReplyDeletefeb246
The movie showed just how skewed the justice systems was towards minorities in the 50's. A jury is supposed to be made up of twelve of your peers to decide your fate. But in the case of the movie, the defendant was a young Latino male, who lived in the slums. The jury was made up completely of older, affluent white males. This in itself showed how racist and prejudice our nation was back then. There wasn't a single woman or minority on the jury.
ReplyDeleteIt was amazing how many details were overlooked or brushed under the rug during the trial. It makes one wonder what was the basis for that. Was it prejudice and racism? Was it negligence? Or was it simply because they honestly thought it was an open and shut case? Henry Fonda's character was the only one to look past the racial differences and consider that there was a human life in their hands. It was almost just a game to the others.
Fonda's character pointed out key details in the evidence that were overlooked. The knife the father was killed with, was supposed to be rare and one of a kind. Fonda proved that the prosecutor just took the shop keepers word and didn't bother researching the matter further. Fonda was bale to go to a store two blocks from the boys home and buy a knife exactly lie the murder weapon for $6.
He also poked holes in the witnesses statements. The old man clearly could not have ran to the front door in time to see the boy running down the steps 15 seconds after he heard a body hit the floor. The old man had suffered a stroke that left one side of his body paralyzed. This would have made it extremely hard for him to reach the door in time. And the women who supposedly saw the boy stab his father threw the windows of the El train, couldn't possibly seen in clear detail that it was the boy. She normally wore glasses and surely wouldn't have been wearing them to bed.
It really made me think about how society and where we are from can play a big part in how we view the world around us. The jurors let prejudices, stereotypes, and racism effect their votes, instead of just the evidence and the prosecutors and the defendants lawyer arguments. This movie was a perfect choice for the chapter to portray prejudice, racism, and stereotypes.
lilblack94gt246
This was not my first time viewing this movie, but because I feel that this movie is so powerful I chose to watch the whole thing again. I want to first point out the gender of the jury in this movie. This movie consisted of all males not one females opinion. The only female opinion was the witness. Another thing I'd like to point out is the ethnicity within the jury. The jury consisted of all white males whom have never once lived in a place the young latino male was raised, well with the exception of the one guy who grew up in the slums. Being that this movie grew up in what we call poverty automatically puts a label on him. Threw many people's eyes he was poor, devious, rebellious, and so on just because of were he was raised. So that brought about the assuming that automatically this young male killed his father because he doesn't care and he doesn't know any better. But if we take it to the older white male who was successful who had a son to me the situation doesn't look much different. His son actually fought him and to me thats out right disrespectful. So how can you just say a kid from the slums doesn't know any better when a kid from the hills is doing the same thing if not worse? The fact that there was one man standing up and wanting to figure out facts instead of just assuming he was able to sway the whole jury. We shouldn't punish a person because of the color of their skin, proper english that they speak, the place they live, or any of the material stuff. We should go off of fact the real things that matter. Some people in societies feel as if they are superior to others when at the end of the day we all sleep, eat, and have feelings like any other person. No one person is better than the next in my eyes.
ReplyDeleteElbow-knee_246
I watched this movie and read the book in high school and to this day this movie still moves me. It is a great example of how race, ethnicity, and gender not only plays a major role in society today but also in our grandparents and great grandparents generation as well. When the jury first arrived in the room to come up with the verdict most of them had already decided the boys fate based on his race, appearance, and because he came from a area filled with proverty and crime. They assumed that he was just like other criminals from his neighborhood; only one person was able to see past that and look at him as a normal person just like you and I. There was one man showed prejudice against elderly and another who showed great respect towards the elderly; which shows us that the way people are raised also plays a part in how we view and treat others as we grow up. Most of these guys were white males, there were no women or African Americans present at all. They had one guy who used personal issues with his son to convict they young boy on trail. Over all this movie showed me how race, ethnicity, and gender play major roles in society. they determine where you get a job, live, how people view you as a person, and even how you are raised. Even though times have changed and things have gotten a little better we still have to put up with these issues. Its very sad and disappointing that we just cant look at each individual as a human who eats, sleeps, and breathe just like the next person. This movie was truly moving. Ladikay_246
ReplyDeleteGroup conformity is when groups influence the behavior of their members by promoting conformity or "fitting in." In 12 Angry Men I believe this played a part in the final verdict. Each man came from a different back ground and appeared to be going through the motions of being on a jury and not really trying to think for themselves. Because of the "drone effect" the prosecutor could easily tell them what to think and how to vote. One man out of twelve had the foresight to actually question the evidence as it was given to see if there was reasonable doubt. Granted this film was set back in I believe the 50's when social norms were somewhat different, but the root problems were there just as they still are today. Prejudice was there for a few of the twelve men and they were open and very vocal about it by using terms like “those people" and "them" in reference to lower income and ethnicity of the boy. They stereo typed the boy and were bias. They also had other agendas mentally that hindered a fair vote as well as it was extremely hot in the deliberating room which made all the men very irritable.
ReplyDeleteThe boy on trial was only 18, lived with an abusive father in the slums, and had an all-around rough life. The evidence against him was an old man testifying he heard an argument where the boys’ father punched him multiple times and then the boy said he was going to kill him, an older neighbor lady 60 feet away that said she saw the boy stab his father in the chest, and a unique/rare switch blade knife as the murder weapon. Multiple times they used the term open and shut case, but because one man voted not guilty and got the rest of the men to actually think things finally started to turn around. They started deliberating and talking about the evidence and what they found is that they could poke holes in every part of the prosecution. The man that voted not guilty even went out and bought the very same knife the father was killed with to persuade the rest that maybe there was more to the evidence that needed to be looked at. From there it was only a matter of time. The rest of the jury members started to lose confidence in their original vote of guilty and started to have reasonable doubts that the kid killed his father.
Admittedly no one really knows if the boy was truly innocent or truly guilty, but because of how our laws are written if there is any reasonable doubt, that person cannot be found guilty. This really can be positive or negative though. What it boils down to is the same thing that can fix 99 problems in life out of 100….MONEY. If you have the money to get the very best lawyer chances are you can literally get away with murder. Because this boy had little or no money his lawyer sucked, and if it wasn’t for one man having the kahunas to go against the crowd he would have most definitely been executed. He will probably never know how extremely close to the death penalty he truly was. The question I still have is was the boy innocent or guilty. I am undecided.
Ethos246