How was the problem solved in 12 Angry Men?

How was the problem solved in 12 Angry Men?

By the jury separating from bigotry, the tenth juror realized his error, changed his vote to not guilty and remained quiet for the rest of the session. Therefore, the conflict was resolved by separating from the lone offender, juror four calmly telling juror ten that he said enough and to not say anymore.

Why does 4 change his vote to not guilty?

Why does four change his vote to not guilty? He changes it because he relied on the woman across the street but now he has reasonable doubt. He just voted to get it over with because he was swayed when they told him that the boy isn’t his son. He also doesn’t have the courage to stand alone like 8 did.

Was the defendant innocent in 12 Angry Men?

Twelve Angry Men: Juror’s Trial Each one of the jurors came to their own decision deciding whether or not the defendant was guilty of the crime or not. The rising action in the play is that only Juror #8 found the defendant innocent and all the other jurors found him guilty of the crime.

Did three finally believe the boy?

Did Three finally believe the boy was not guilty, or did he vote just to get it over with? Support your answer. He voted because he believed he was not guilty

What was the main problem in 12 Angry Men?

12 Angry Men focuses on a jury’s deliberations in a capital murder case. A 12-man jury is sent to begin deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year old Puerto Rican boy accused in the stabbing death of his father, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence.

How were most decisions made in 12 Angry Men?

Labeling Theory In 12 Angry Men It is extremely interesting to watch how most of the jurors had their minds made up about the case even before deliberation; however, as the film progresses the jurors stop labeling the defendant and instead make their verdict decision based on facts.

What does the ending of 12 Angry Men mean?

After convincing the jury to give a Not Guilty verdict, Juror #8 walks over to #3, his nemesis, and puts his coat on for him. The gesture shows us that despite the extent to which they’ve argued in the jury room, there will be no hard feelings once they head back into the world.

Why does juror four change his vote?

The Idea of Reasonable Doubt Only one other juror is holding out for a guilty verdict at the point when Juror Four changes his vote. When Juror Three stands alone in his damnation of the defendant, he begs for Juror Four’s help to persuade the others, but Juror Four has changed his vote to ‘not guilty.

Who actually voted not guilty why did he change his vote?

Juror number nine changed his vote because he wanted to hear more from juror number eight. You just studied 9 terms!

Why does juror #4 say he is still not convinced enough to change his vote what piece of evidence is holding him back explain?

Why is 4 still not able to change his vote? There is still no reasonable doubt in the logical one’s mind that the kid is guilty; the lady has a good memory and she saw the murder committed. It’s an unshakable testimony and probably the most important piece of evidence.

Why do you think 5 changes his vote to not guilty?

Why do you think #5 changes his vote to not guilty? He does not believe that the man could run to his door to see the boy run outside. Is it ever proven that the boy did not yell, I’m going to kill you!?

Was the boy in 12 Angry Men innocent or guilty?

In the end, the teen is found not guilty, and the jurors go their separate ways; the thunderstorm that has been building throughout the film passes, the clouds break, the music swells, and we turn off the film content that justice was done.

Who was actually guilty in 12 angry men?

They did not let a guilty man go free. In the U.S., to be guilty, one must have been judged to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And that judgement must come through a unanimous decision by 12 of one’s peers. The young man was not found guilty, so he wasn’t guilty.

What did the defendant do in 12 Angry Men?

In this theatrical work, the twelve men of the jury deliberate the guilt or acquittal of the defendant, an 18-year-old Hispanic male, who is accused of stabbing his father to death. The jury must arrive at a unanimous decision of whether or not to convict the boy on the basis of reasonable doubt.

Who voted not guilty first in 12 Angry Men?

Juror 8

Did Juror 3 finally believe the boy was not guilty?

As the final hold-out after the other jurors are able to put reasonable doubt into every witness’s testimony, Juror 3 acts as if he alone is going to hang the jury in order to be right, but as he stands alone without an argument, he finally concedes and votes not guilty.

Why does Juror 3 want the boy to be guilty?

This juror is well-spoken and his way of thinking more on logical. He believed the accused as guilty because he had preconceived motions about people from the slums. He avoids the emotional arguments and engages in rational discussion. He changes his vote due to the witness’s testimony is discredited.

Why was juror number 3 so convinced that the boy was guilty of killing his father?

Juror 3 voted guilty because he wanted to get it over with. He also didn’t have enough courage to stand alone, nor was able to give facts to back up his reasoning for saying the boy was guilty.

What does three scream at the end of Act Two?

Three becomes angry with all these tricks. He thinks the boy deserves to die; in fact, he’ll kill him personally. When Eight challenges him saying that he personally wants to see the boy die, it’s not based on facts, Three screams that he will kill him.

Leave a Comment