12 Angry Men

12 ANGRY MEN
QUESTION 1
At the beginning the architect´s opinion was opposite to all of the entire jury. He did not want to judge a person by the context of the situation because there was a lot atstake . Furthermore, he wanted to talk about the problem and go into detail in order to try to achieve the right decision. After putting into question all the facts dealing with the murderer, thearchitect make everyone else change their minds because there was not a certain fact to incriminate him. Finally , the architect make himself the informal leader by taking a firm stand and giving reasonsto support it.

QUESTION 2
Almost all the jury state that the defendant was guilty as they had a lot of prejudices and it was the easiest thing to do as there is a strong peer pressure. They givelittle thought to the fact that they have a life in their hands because it was something external to them and they did not want to spend their time discussing about it. Each juror change their opinionby listening to the others and putting into question things that previously were taken for sure. For example ,the idea of old man that could not hear the boy shouting “I will kill you” because therewas a train or that he was unable to see him running out from the house.

QUESTION 3
I do not think this question should be done as men and women are equal. If there would have been 12 women Ithink that the same issues would have happened although women are more likely to talk than men. In a group of people there is always one that wants to contradict, another that does what people do andother that is a stubborn taking it as if it was a competition. For me the question should be how the story would be different if there were not that many personalities and any of them would have given achance to talk about the fact.

QUESTION 4
I am not sure how a racial or ethnical jury would have changed the story but from my point of view number 10 behaved in a racial way when he said awful...