The jury in a trial is designated to scrutinize certain facts and determine truth based only on the evidence accessible to them in court. It is implicated that the jurors will judge fairly and without any personal prejudice. The play starts in the courtroom where the judge is giving instructions to the jurors on the murder case. It is stated that if the young man is found guilty, he will be charged with a mandatory verdict of the death penalty. It is now up to the twelve men to determine if this young man must be sentenced to death. Does Twelve Angry Men show that prejudice can obscure the truth?
The play is set in a New York City Official courtroom jury room in 1957. The play begins with the void of a jury room, and the Judge’s voice is perceived, giving an arrangement of decisive directions to the members of the jury. We determine this event is a homicide case and that, if exposed liable, the mandatory sentence for the condemned capital punishment. In this play ’12 Angry Men’ we see that the Forman was authoritative. He took responsibility whenever someone would get out of hand at all.
He was always trying to get everyone to stop fighting, despite what he had to do and last, he would try to make everyone agree even when there was that one man who would not change his mind for anything or anyone. When the Foreman gets into the room, he takes charge right away and sits at the front of the table to lead everyone. He first says, ‘let’s take seats’ (page 88). Everyone was being loud and talking much and then he said, ‘we’d like to get started’ (page 88). The Forman was trying to give the men ideas on what they could do to figure out a verdict, then the Foreman said, ‘we can vote right now to see where we stand’ (page 88)
127 our experts are availableright now
Most of the members of the jury, vote ‘accountable,’ apart from the eighth Legal hearer, who votes ‘not liable,’ which, because of the prerequisite of a consistent jury, drives them to examine the case. The members of the jury reply ferociously against this reversing vote. At last, they choose to circumvent the table, clarifying why they trust the kid to be guilty, with expectations of persuading eighth Hearer. Through this talk, we take in the supplementary actualities about right: an old
man living beneath the kid, and his dad established that he overheard upstairs a battle, the kid yelling, ‘I’m going to slaughter you,’ a body hitting the ground, and after that he saw the kid running down the stairs. The kid guaranteed he had been at the films while his dad was killed, however couldn’t recall the name of the motion pictures or who was in them. A lady living over the road confirmed that she saw the kids murder his dad through the windows of a passing hoisted prepare. The kid had, that night, had a contention with his dad, which brought about the kid’s dad hitting him twice. At last, the kid has a broad rundown of earlier offenses, including endeavoring to slice another youngster with a blade. There is a solid rallying against the defendant. Hearer looked at him to his own specific child, with whom he was antagonized, and tenth Member of the jury uncovers solid bigot inclinations against the litigant.
At the point when a discourse about the murder weapon, which was documented as the blade developed by the respondent, an ‘exceptional’ blade, starts, the eighth Member of the jury astounds the others by exhibiting an indistinguishable blade he had obtained in a pawn shop two pieces from where the kid carried on a couple of evenings earlier, crushing the claim that the blade was so astonishing and identifiable. eighth Legal hearer suggests to the other eleven jurors could vote, and if every one of them voted ‘not blameworthy,’ he would not continue solitary and would indulge their liable decision. They consent to this and vote by anonymous ticket. The vote is 10 ‘liable’ votes and 1 ‘not liable’ vote, thus the thought proceeds.
Instantaneously, the members of the jury turn on fifth Hearer, blaming him for having changed his vote out of sensitivity for the kid. ninth Member of the jury stands and confesses to having changed his vote since he’d get a kick out of the chance to listen to the contentions. Eighth Legal hearer raises doubt about the legitimacy of the declaration of the old man living first floor. ninth Member of the jury gives the likelihood that the old man was just vouching for feel imperative. The eighth Member of the jury finishes up by saying that regardless of the possibility that he heard him say, ‘I’m going to murder you,’ that could be taken outside of any relevant connection to the issue at hand as only a metaphor. With this fifth Member of the jury changes his vote to ‘not liable,’ and the vote is 9-3 for blameworthy.
After another warmed dialog which brings up the issue of why the kid would have returned home, in the wake of executing his dad, they take another vote. This time, fifth, eighth, ninth, and eleventh vote ‘not liable,’ and the consultation proceeds. After a short contention, eighth Member of the jury brings into question regardless of whether the ground floor neighbor, an old man who had endured a stroke and could just walk gradually, could have gotten to the way to see the kid rundown the stairs in fifteen seconds, as he had affirmed. Eighth Attendant reproduces the floor design of the condo, while second Legal hearer times him, and they presume that he would not have possessed the capacity to achieve his entryway in fifteen seconds. third Member of the jury responds brutally to this and winds up assaulting eighth Legal hearer, yelling, ‘God it! I’ll murder him! I’ll murder him.’ Eighth Member of the jury asks, ‘You don’t generally mean you’ll slaughter me, isn’t that right?’ demonstrating his prior point about how individuals say, ‘I’ll execute you,’ when they don’t generally would not joke about this.
Act II continues in a similar minute we exited off with in Act I. In the wake of everything quiets down, the legal hearers continue consultations. Another vote is taken, and the jury is presently six to six. They enjoy a reprieve. Amid this break, it starts to rain outside. Likewise, they can turn the fan on, chilling the room. At the point when consultations continue, eighth Attendant endeavors to break separated the declaration of the apprehending cop that the plaintiff was not able name the films that he had declared to have seen that night. He states that conceivably the respondent just overlooked the names of the movies and who was in them ‘under awesome passionate misery.’
Upon advance dialog about the switchblade, it ends up plainly sketchy regardless of whether the litigant would have made the cut injury, ‘down and in,’ which would be in opposition as far as anyone is concerned and involvement with how to utilize such a blade. The hearers take another vote, and it is presently nine to three, everything except third, fourth, and tenth Member of the jury are agreeable to ‘not blameworthy.’ This dispatches tenth Legal hearer in a gigantic extremist rage, which closes with fourth Attendant reproving him once again into his seat. ninth Member of the jury raises doubt about the observer declaration of the lady living over the road, as she wore glasses yet picked not to wear them in court, raising doubt about regardless of whether she would have been wearing them in bed, when she saw the murder through her window.
Presently, the vote is 11 to 1, and third Legal hearer remains solitary. At the start, he stands firm, saying that he will be the holdout to make this a hung jury. He dispatches himself into a last outrageous tirade against the kid that dives into chatter. eighth and fourth Members of the jury make a short last request, and third Legal hearer at long last yields, saying ‘Okay. Not liable.’ The Foreman educates the Watch that they have attained a decision, and the Members of the jury leave the court.
The foreman in order to diffuse conflict from intensifying is the mediator. His job is to mediate conflict by calming everyone down through their arrangements. The foreman guides that the group should, one by one, explain why they think the boy is guilty. At this point the foreman should’ve been more involved when conflict rose amongst all the men. Thirty minutes into the movie, an oblivious comment was made by one of the jurors. Another juror found his statement pointless and believed that it shouldn’t be joked about. The 12 men were taking a long time to conclude about the boy and his trial. The Forman would try making everyone agree, but there was continually be that one man who did not agree and would not change their mind for anyone or anything. Juror number 3 was that man in this case. The Forman was trying to be making everyone agree ‘that sounds fair, is everyone agreed” (Page 93). And when juror number 3 did not agree with anyone the Forman got him persuaded that the boy was not guilty by the end.
In conclusion, the Forman in the play was not particularly the greatest in the room of the 12 men to deal with this situation. He still did an extremely good job and got all that was needed to be done, done without tearing everybody apart even though they did get under each other’s skin. Overall the Forman was extremely organized.
