Judgment today, yesterday and tomorrow, The Movie “Twelve Angry Men” is a definitive case of a group of individuals compelled to cooperate keeping in mind the end goal to achieve a solitary, characterized objective. The jury, which comprises of 12 men, must think until the point that a consistent choice is come to. In this particular example, which happens in a New York courthouse, the decision holds the life of an 18-year-old in a critical position. The film is displayed in a way that enables the watcher to be the undetectable jury member and sit in as they ponder the destiny of the litigant. The primary vote is 11 to 1, finding the respondent blameworthy. Yet, one of the individuals that were separated of the jury didn’t know whether the young fellow was blameworthy in light of the fact that he discovered some evidence to demonstrate this could all be a coincidence.
we see a circumstance where Juror Eight – equipped with all the self-governance and knowledge of an ideal leader – advances to the jury attempting to promote the consideration of an idea, which he has planted in the mind of a generally unanimous jury; this idea is the slightest possibility of innocence in the conviction of a boy charged with patricide. Juror Eight appeals to this difference in thoughts designs by directing his companions through a journey of personal evaluation – enabling them to achieve conclusions on their own, rather than specifically dropping their mental mindset into the terminal of his own rationale.
Legal hearer Eight discloses to the men that the young fellow’s childhood was extremely tragic and unforgiving, he educated them concerning how the young fellow blamed was in a foster home and he experienced childhood in the ghettos without his mom. he father figure of the young man would occasionally beat him up ever since he was 5 years old. Over the span of the discussion inside the jury room, Juror #8 summarizes the evidence presented and the conclusions drawn by his fellow jurors, by asking questions. He analyzes the content, by breaking down the evidence parts and analyzing each.
One example was when the 11 jurors identified the deadly weapon as the same knife the young man bought from the store that night, Juror Eight said then pulled out an exact copy of the knife.