Please share your personal reaction to the film. Discuss the following questions ... What Is “Reasonable Doubt”? Which characters base their decisions on prejudice? How would you have voted if you were on the jury?
I thought this movie was interesting because it shows there are pros and cons to having jury. As seen in the movie, 11 men are ready to convict the boy based off of the facts but more importantly based off their own prejudices against the boy and the neighborhood he's from. Juror 12 slowly points out more and more holes in the evidence presented in court until he brings everyone to his side. Today when juries are no longer composed of all white males this prejudice is not as much of a problem. But human nature and how naturally prejudiced and judgmental we are may sometimes get in the way of a perfectly fair trial.
Reasonable doubt is that there is not enough convincing evidence for the judge or jurors to prove a defendant to be guilty. There is enough doubt present for there not to be a conviction. Juror 3 and 10 voted on prejudices. I probably would have voted originally like the other jurors with a guilty vote, but I would have switched after they went back over all of the details.
I thought that "12 angry men," while a bit dated in terms of cinematic quality, was spot on in its portrayal of one of the most difficult but necessary parts of the American Judicial system. I would personally hope that if I were to be on trial for murder, than the jurors deciding my verdict would have discussed with such very and skepticism. "Reasonable doubt" is the notion that, in order to convict someone of a criminal offense, a jury must be able to prove his or her guilt without a reasonable doubt, meaning free of any potential apprehension. In the movie, two of the jurors, 3 and 10, allowed their prejudices to overcome their logic. If i were on the jury, I would have most likely initially voted guilty although, in hearing juror 8's crystal clear logic, would've changed my vote to not guilty.
Although I somewhat enjoyed "12 Angry Men," I dislike movies in black and white, so it wasn't my favorite. The content was good though as was the actual plotline and it brought up a good point. Reasonable Doubt is when there is not enough evidence to prove that someone is guilty. This does not mean that the person is necessarily not guilty, but there isn't enough evidence to prove that they are guilty. Characters 3 and 10 made their decisions based on their prejudice. I would have probably initially voted guilty because at first there seemed to be enough evidence. But after Juror 8, I would have probably changed my vote, because everything he said made sense.
12 Angry Men is a gripping depiction of one of the less glamorous parts of our justice system, that of a jury member. The jury in this film was able to be swayed against their initial verdict of guilty due to the concept of reasonable doubt. This is the idea that unless the jury is given sufficient evidence to cause them reasonable doubt of the crime, they should not vote guilty. It also portrayed the discrimination and prejudicial backing behind their decisions, while most of the jurists were able to write him off as the culprit just because he came from a bad neighborhood and a lower socioeconomic class. In my opinion, there was reasonable doubt as to whether the culprit was the boy or not, so I would have voted not guilty.
"12 Angry Men" showed why it is a classic movie, holding its relevancy to this day. It helped break down the thought process of a group of jurors and clearly showed the shifting feelings of each man. "Reasonable Doubt", as a concept means, only convicting a defendant when his guilt is beyond a justifiable suspicion. As for my vote, I most likely would have voted to convict until the very end scene that described how the eye witness would have not been abel to see without her glasses. At this point, I most likely would have changed by vote to not guilty.
Reasonable doubt is any hole or uncertainty that the juror feels when the case is presented to them and court and reexamined during deliberation. According to the law, reasonable doubt is doesn't present a clear cut, open and shut case. I don't think that I would have found the defendant guilty because, as a very detail oriented person, I would have found too many holes in the prosecutions case (but, as they didn't portray the actual case in the court, with the witnesses, the prosecution, and the defense speaking, I cannot say for sure).
I enjoyed the movie, it captivated my attention even though it was in black and white and took place in one room throughout. Reasonable doubt is clearly spelled out as any uncertainty the juror may feel when they are deliberating the case. Jurors 3 and 10 inexplicably voted based on their prejudices. There were too many holes in the prosecution's testimony in my opinion to convict. I would have voted not guilty, simply because of reasonable doubt.
I thought that "12 Angry Men" was a captivating movie that showed the frustration of the men who the jurors. I thought that it was interesting that the movie was still good even though it took place in one room the whole movie. Reasonable Doubt the level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case. There were ten out of twelve jurors that voted on prejudices before Henry Fonda gave them a reason to think differently. I would have probably voted guilty but changed my mind after there was doubt presented by Henry Fonda.
I like the movie, because it showed how short-sighted and impatient people can be, even when a persons life is hanging in the ballads. Reasonable doubt is the amount of confidence a juror has when finding a defendant guilty.Jurors 3 and 10 voted based of their own personal prejudices, but if I was apart of the jury I would've voted not guilty.
I remember seeing 12 Angry Men when I was maybe 10 so it was interesting to watching again at 18. Oddly, given the age difference, my reaction is much the same. It was impressive how one man stood against the crowd and eventually changed the minds of 11 other men. With the testimony heard it would be easy to convict the boy but Henry Fonda's character understands a man's right to a fair trial and a fair jury so he rightly talked the facts out further. Once almost all of the evidence against the boy was in question many of the jurors voted not guilty. I believe not guilty was the right decision in the end but it is important to remember that he may be guilty, they only let him go because there was reasonable doubt with the evidence presented.
I thought 12 Angry Men was a very good portrayal at least of what should go on in a jury room. I think Fonda presented a very good argument from the start and followed the basis that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty. I like how he never said the boy was guilty, but rather just said that he could not make a decision. Dealing with the boys's life, I think it was a smart decision. Reasonable doubt is basically the jury should not make a decision until they have reasonable doubt that after all evidence is presented, the defendent is guilty or not guilty. I think the last guy to vote showed the most prejudice because he just didnt want to be wrong. I would have voted not guilty unless there was better evidence presented against the boy.
I thought 12 Angry Men was a very good portrayal at least of what should go on in a jury room. I think Fonda presented a very good argument from the start and followed the basis that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty. I like how he never said the boy was guilty, but rather just said that he could not make a decision. Dealing with the boys's life, I think it was a smart decision. Reasonable doubt is basically the jury should not make a decision until they have reasonable doubt that after all evidence is presented, the defendent is guilty or not guilty. I think the last guy to vote showed the most prejudice because he just didnt want to be wrong. I would have voted not guilty unless there was better evidence presented against the boy.
Reasonable doubt is used when there is no clear cut way to judge a trial. Tension was high and sweat was plentify as we stepped into the jury's world. Once we entered their twisted, confusing and obsure path to find out if the boy was guilty, I immidately realized how burdensome the jury process is. The gavity of having a death sentence on the table impacted some jurors more than others, and in the instance of character 3 and 10, they based their decision on prejudice. I can only hope one day I will never be put on a jury, but if I do I would have probably voted not guilty.
If i were in this situation I would hope that I would side with the protagonist. Reasonable doubt is used when a the situation arises that a person on trail is not clearly guilty or innocent. That is to say, in the movie, that the boy was not proven completely guilty by the evidence and therefore there is reasonable doubt that he did not do it. The fact that the boy was facing the death penalty obviously effected some jurors more than others, but pride was a hard thing to get past with other jurors. It was a great story and a great model for reasonable doubt.
I thought this movie was interesting because it shows there are pros and cons to having jury. As seen in the movie, 11 men are ready to convict the boy based off of the facts but more importantly based off their own prejudices against the boy and the neighborhood he's from. Juror 12 slowly points out more and more holes in the evidence presented in court until he brings everyone to his side. Today when juries are no longer composed of all white males this prejudice is not as much of a problem. But human nature and how naturally prejudiced and judgmental we are may sometimes get in the way of a perfectly fair trial.
ReplyDeleteReasonable doubt is that there is not enough convincing evidence for the judge or jurors to prove a defendant to be guilty. There is enough doubt present for there not to be a conviction. Juror 3 and 10 voted on prejudices. I probably would have voted originally like the other jurors with a guilty vote, but I would have switched after they went back over all of the details.
ReplyDeleteI thought that "12 angry men," while a bit dated in terms of cinematic quality, was spot on in its portrayal of one of the most difficult but necessary parts of the American Judicial system. I would personally hope that if I were to be on trial for murder, than the jurors deciding my verdict would have discussed with such very and skepticism. "Reasonable doubt" is the notion that, in order to convict someone of a criminal offense, a jury must be able to prove his or her guilt without a reasonable doubt, meaning free of any potential apprehension. In the movie, two of the jurors, 3 and 10, allowed their prejudices to overcome their logic. If i were on the jury, I would have most likely initially voted guilty although, in hearing juror 8's crystal clear logic, would've changed my vote to not guilty.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I somewhat enjoyed "12 Angry Men," I dislike movies in black and white, so it wasn't my favorite. The content was good though as was the actual plotline and it brought up a good point. Reasonable Doubt is when there is not enough evidence to prove that someone is guilty. This does not mean that the person is necessarily not guilty, but there isn't enough evidence to prove that they are guilty. Characters 3 and 10 made their decisions based on their prejudice. I would have probably initially voted guilty because at first there seemed to be enough evidence. But after Juror 8, I would have probably changed my vote, because everything he said made sense.
ReplyDelete12 Angry Men is a gripping depiction of one of the less glamorous parts of our justice system, that of a jury member. The jury in this film was able to be swayed against their initial verdict of guilty due to the concept of reasonable doubt. This is the idea that unless the jury is given sufficient evidence to cause them reasonable doubt of the crime, they should not vote guilty. It also portrayed the discrimination and prejudicial backing behind their decisions, while most of the jurists were able to write him off as the culprit just because he came from a bad neighborhood and a lower socioeconomic class. In my opinion, there was reasonable doubt as to whether the culprit was the boy or not, so I would have voted not guilty.
ReplyDelete"12 Angry Men" showed why it is a classic movie, holding its relevancy to this day. It helped break down the thought process of a group of jurors and clearly showed the shifting feelings of each man. "Reasonable Doubt", as a concept means, only convicting a defendant when his guilt is beyond a justifiable suspicion. As for my vote, I most likely would have voted to convict until the very end scene that described how the eye witness would have not been abel to see without her glasses. At this point, I most likely would have changed by vote to not guilty.
ReplyDeleteReasonable doubt is any hole or uncertainty that the juror feels when the case is presented to them and court and reexamined during deliberation. According to the law, reasonable doubt is doesn't present a clear cut, open and shut case. I don't think that I would have found the defendant guilty because, as a very detail oriented person, I would have found too many holes in the prosecutions case (but, as they didn't portray the actual case in the court, with the witnesses, the prosecution, and the defense speaking, I cannot say for sure).
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the movie, it captivated my attention even though it was in black and white and took place in one room throughout. Reasonable doubt is clearly spelled out as any uncertainty the juror may feel when they are deliberating the case. Jurors 3 and 10 inexplicably voted based on their prejudices. There were too many holes in the prosecution's testimony in my opinion to convict. I would have voted not guilty, simply because of reasonable doubt.
ReplyDeleteI thought that "12 Angry Men" was a captivating movie that showed the frustration of the men who the jurors. I thought that it was interesting that the movie was still good even though it took place in one room the whole movie. Reasonable Doubt the level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case. There were ten out of twelve jurors that voted on prejudices before Henry Fonda gave them a reason to think differently. I would have probably voted guilty but changed my mind after there was doubt presented by Henry Fonda.
DeleteI like the movie, because it showed how short-sighted and impatient people can be, even when a persons life is hanging in the ballads. Reasonable doubt is the amount of confidence a juror has when finding a defendant guilty.Jurors 3 and 10 voted based of their own personal prejudices, but if I was apart of the jury I would've voted not guilty.
ReplyDeleteI remember seeing 12 Angry Men when I was maybe 10 so it was interesting to watching again at 18. Oddly, given the age difference, my reaction is much the same. It was impressive how one man stood against the crowd and eventually changed the minds of 11 other men. With the testimony heard it would be easy to convict the boy but Henry Fonda's character understands a man's right to a fair trial and a fair jury so he rightly talked the facts out further. Once almost all of the evidence against the boy was in question many of the jurors voted not guilty. I believe not guilty was the right decision in the end but it is important to remember that he may be guilty, they only let him go because there was reasonable doubt with the evidence presented.
ReplyDeleteI thought 12 Angry Men was a very good portrayal at least of what should go on in a jury room. I think Fonda presented a very good argument from the start and followed the basis that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty. I like how he never said the boy was guilty, but rather just said that he could not make a decision. Dealing with the boys's life, I think it was a smart decision. Reasonable doubt is basically the jury should not make a decision until they have reasonable doubt that after all evidence is presented, the defendent is guilty or not guilty. I think the last guy to vote showed the most prejudice because he just didnt want to be wrong. I would have voted not guilty unless there was better evidence presented against the boy.
ReplyDeleteI thought 12 Angry Men was a very good portrayal at least of what should go on in a jury room. I think Fonda presented a very good argument from the start and followed the basis that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty. I like how he never said the boy was guilty, but rather just said that he could not make a decision. Dealing with the boys's life, I think it was a smart decision. Reasonable doubt is basically the jury should not make a decision until they have reasonable doubt that after all evidence is presented, the defendent is guilty or not guilty. I think the last guy to vote showed the most prejudice because he just didnt want to be wrong. I would have voted not guilty unless there was better evidence presented against the boy.
ReplyDeleteReasonable doubt is used when there is no clear cut way to judge a trial. Tension was high and sweat was plentify as we stepped into the jury's world. Once we entered their twisted, confusing and obsure path to find out if the boy was guilty, I immidately realized how burdensome the jury process is. The gavity of having a death sentence on the table impacted some jurors more than others, and in the instance of character 3 and 10, they based their decision on prejudice. I can only hope one day I will never be put on a jury, but if I do I would have probably voted not guilty.
ReplyDeleteIf i were in this situation I would hope that I would side with the protagonist. Reasonable doubt is used when a the situation arises that a person on trail is not clearly guilty or innocent. That is to say, in the movie, that the boy was not proven completely guilty by the evidence and therefore there is reasonable doubt that he did not do it. The fact that the boy was facing the death penalty obviously effected some jurors more than others, but pride was a hard thing to get past with other jurors. It was a great story and a great model for reasonable doubt.
ReplyDelete