12 Angry Men Essay
Daniella Portelada
April 5, 2011
Susan Naide CJ 102
12 Angry Men Throughout my life I have been presented with opinionated questions to answer and a lot of the times I found it difficult to answer them without asking around a bit. Looking back on that I believe that is it impossible to remain truly impartial. You may start off with your own idea but one everyone else around you starts presenting their ides you may begin to change your mind. If it is something that someone believes in there is a good chance that they will have a convincing argument to back up their statement. Due to these kinds of things they may sway your mind and alter your judgment therefore you are no longer truly impartial. In my opinion jurors cannot carry out …show more content…
The vote started off at 11 “guilty” to 1 “not guilty”. Those men that voted guilty were in an uproar that one man had voted not guilty and could not understand why. However that one man was able to provide enough evidence as to ways the young boy could be innocent and he changed a few other jurors’ minds as well. There were many great points made in the juror room as to how the young boy could be innocent. For instance someone else in the apartment building said that they heard the boy scream he was going to kill his father then heard a thud on the floor. However a woman from an apartment from across the tracks said she watched him kill his father just as the train was passing. If the train was passing it would have been very loud and the man from the same apartment building would not have been able to hear the young boy yell. This proves that the witnesses are not reliable. Another example is that they said the knife used to kill the father was a one of a kind knife that no one else owned when come to find out one of the jurors has the same exact knife, quite a coincidence. The arguing went on and eventually together the jurors were able to come up with enough contradictions to the story that the vote became once again 11 to 2 but this time it was 11 “not guilty” and 1 “guilty”. Eventually they were able to conclude the meeting and rule the boy to be not
April 5, 2011
Susan Naide CJ 102
12 Angry Men Throughout my life I have been presented with opinionated questions to answer and a lot of the times I found it difficult to answer them without asking around a bit. Looking back on that I believe that is it impossible to remain truly impartial. You may start off with your own idea but one everyone else around you starts presenting their ides you may begin to change your mind. If it is something that someone believes in there is a good chance that they will have a convincing argument to back up their statement. Due to these kinds of things they may sway your mind and alter your judgment therefore you are no longer truly impartial. In my opinion jurors cannot carry out …show more content…
The vote started off at 11 “guilty” to 1 “not guilty”. Those men that voted guilty were in an uproar that one man had voted not guilty and could not understand why. However that one man was able to provide enough evidence as to ways the young boy could be innocent and he changed a few other jurors’ minds as well. There were many great points made in the juror room as to how the young boy could be innocent. For instance someone else in the apartment building said that they heard the boy scream he was going to kill his father then heard a thud on the floor. However a woman from an apartment from across the tracks said she watched him kill his father just as the train was passing. If the train was passing it would have been very loud and the man from the same apartment building would not have been able to hear the young boy yell. This proves that the witnesses are not reliable. Another example is that they said the knife used to kill the father was a one of a kind knife that no one else owned when come to find out one of the jurors has the same exact knife, quite a coincidence. The arguing went on and eventually together the jurors were able to come up with enough contradictions to the story that the vote became once again 11 to 2 but this time it was 11 “not guilty” and 1 “guilty”. Eventually they were able to conclude the meeting and rule the boy to be not