Twelve Angry Men

Norms: - Respect for elders (eg, workers are self-designated polite performers) • Jurors evaluate incidents based on facts rather than prejudices and fixed ideas. People who claim this value (jury 8 and jury 4) are respected and become leaders for guidance. A jury who insists on stereotypes alienates others. · Decisions must be consistent (stopping the jury is not what everyone likes) racial prejudice is not tolerated The group starts with the first arrival process

"Twelve Angry Men", "Twelve Angry Men" by Reginald Rose are screenplays on 12 juries in an uncomfortable room. They had to talk about the fate and death of a boy who accused or killed his father. The juries do not actually know each other, they want them somewhere in the jury. Each jury has a different emotional pattern that makes the play interesting. In my opinion, the jury mainly has three juries. The jury 8, the jury 3, the jury 9. No matter what you encounter, prejudice masks the truth. Perhaps this is the best summary of Reginald Rose's "Twelve Angry Men" basis. That play relates to a young criminal in a trial trying to kill his father. If there is no reasonable doubt, the jury must recognize him as guilty and declare him the death penalty. I am not jealous of your job. You are facing a grave responsibility.

Reginald Rose 's "Twelve Angry Men" tension is scheduled in New York in the summer of 1957. A juvenile offender was tried, and stabbed his violent father's breast with a unique knife. In the absence of reasonable doubt, the judge will order the jury, consisting of 12 men, to vote for guilty. In voting: 11 votes are guilty, but some believe that it is necessary to discuss the bad guilt of the boy and the ambiguity of the evidence provided. - The jury # 1 initially thought that the boy was guilty. He is convinced that the evidence is sufficient to convict the boy. He kept on thinking until the jury first voted and saw one of the jurors thought the boy was innocent. Then through the movie, all the juries slowly believed that the boy was not guilty. The rhetorical charm he used for the first time was the logo. He convicted based on the logic provided by the court.