12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men Essay Many movies start with promising premises that end up only partially fulfilled, but 12 Angry Men Essay never disappoints. The rich drama with minimalist sets occurs almost completely within the confines of a jury room. The incredibly strong ensemble cast for the jury includes: Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden, Jack Klugman, Edward Binns, Joseph Sweeney, Martin Balsam, George Voskovec, John Fiedler and Robert Webber. To further minimize distractions, we never learn most of the jurors names. We know them by their opinions, backgrounds and weaknesses. They have their juror numbers, and that is considered sufficient labeling. As the story opens, a bored judge in a capital murder case is reading his charge to the jury. When he comes to the part about a reasonable doubt, he repeats it with such an emphasis that he seems to be suggesting that any doubt they may have in their minds about the defendants guilt is probably not reasonable. Indeed everyone, including the defendant, seems to think the case is hopeless. The accused, played with big, soulful eyes by John Savoca, never speaks, but his sunken, despondent demeanor says it all. The evidence in the case is clear, and as we find out later, his attorney apparently was pretty inept. Before the jurors start their deliberation, they idle away their time arguing over whether the case was dull or not and over how well the attorneys performed. If you didnt know better, you could assume they were reviewing some movie they had seen. None of them seems to be concerned in the least that the defendants life is at stake. Into this sure and certain world comes a voice of caution, someone who is willing to demand that the jurors put a halt to their headlong rush to judgment. This voice of reason comes from a juror played by Henry Fonda, giving a resolute and perfect performance that should have at least gotten him an Academy Award nomination for best actor, but didnt. Fondas character votes not guilty on the first ballot, not because hes sure the defendant is innocent, but because he wants to get his fellow jurors to stop and reconsider the merits of the case. The other jurors are aghast that he seems to have forgotten the sure and certain facts of the case that prove the defendants guilt. Now these are facts, barks an angry juror played by Lee J. Cobb. You cant refute facts. Everyone brings their differing lifestyles into the jury room. E.G. Marshall plays a prim and proper Wall Street stockbroker. He ticks off the facts in the case as if he were reading closing stock prices from the newspaper. His studious and ever-stern glare cuts down those who disagree with him. And he is the only one who keeps his coat on the entire time-he claims he never sweats, even in the stiflingly hot jury room. His bankers glasses, one of the films few props, turn out to be key to the cases solution. With superciliousness, he bemoans slum dwellers such as the defendant, only to find out that another juror, played by Jack Klugman, grew up in the slums and resents the brokers remarks. Although most jurors are known by the intensity of their convictions, Robert Webber plays someone who works in advertising and views serving on a jury no more seriously than he would concocting a laundry soap jingle. He tries using advertising lingo such as run this idea up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes it. After ridicule and scorn by his fellow jurors, Henry Fondas character suggests a startling compromise. He will abstain from the second ballot, and if they all vote guilty, so will he. But if he has garnered any support for the defendant, then the rest of the jurors have to agree to stay awhile and discuss the case with him. After he wins that round, one by one, the other jurors begin to fall in line behind him, but even if the conclusion is obvious, the way they get there constantly surprises and fascinates. The beauty of Roses script is that we come to know each of the jurors by the end of the deliberations. Most writers would gloss over some of them to concentrate on a few, but Rose gives each a unique personality and background. extroverted marmalade salesman, who made $27,000 last year and has tickets to tonights ball game burning in his pocket. He wants to vote .

Industrial safety engineering (safety in work enviroment) Term Paper

Industrial safety engineering (safety in work enviroment) - Term Paper Example The government regulations on organizational safety and health (OSHA) demand that organizations maintain health and safety standards to ensure that their employees work in a minimum risk working environment. Failing to comply with these regulations attracts legal penalties that often are consequential to the organization. One of the superior ways of maintaining health and safety within an organization is educating the employees on the need for safety in a working environment and the minimum safety level requirements demanded in the organization. The management should thus be aware of how to induce effective training programs and how to align the employees towards the managerial objectives as far as health and safety is concerned within the work place. In reality, employee training is a key strategy to minimization of accidents, illnesses and death in work environments. Safety and health are two closely related terms yet very distinct in an industrial setting, hence the need to separa te them. Goetsch (2008), an industrial and safety professional, define safety in an organization as the ability to keep the employees away from the accident-causing situations that might cause damage, injury or even kill the employee. For instance, in an engineering firm, engineers have to operate electrically driven machines such as conveyor belts and grinders. When such machines come into contact with human beings, they are likely to cause accidents, some of which may be fatal. As such, it is crucial to safeguard the life of an employee from such machines to avoid unnecessary accidents in an organization. On the other hand, health maintenance refers to the ability to protect employees from disease causing environments. In industrial organizations, say a manufacturing plant, employees are exposed to smoke that may cause lung diseases. In this light, organizations have a core responsibility to avoid accidents and industrial related diseases within the employee population. In the Uni ted States the Organizational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) provides the standards that industrial organizations should comply with. The OSH Act provides that each business organization has a general duty to ensure that their employees are safe and free work environment hazards. Each year, the federal government, through their safety supervisors, conduct random safety inspections to observe whether organization have applied safety programs that comply with the OSHA standards. Over 50, 000 organizations are scrutinized and failure of compliance attracts fines, penalties and even temporary or permanent closure of organizations. One requirement of the OSH Act is that the employees have the â€Å"right-to-know† the health risks and conditions of the organization before they are assigned to their duties (United States Department of Labor, 2013). Resultantly, the act recommends that every organization implement an employee training program to ensure that employees are aware of the d angers that they risk in their working conditions. In essence, the implementing a health and safety training program is a compulsory requirement for every organization. Putting the legal side of organizational health and safety aside, a healthy working environment has many economic benefits to the organization. Burton (2008) points out to the high financial cost that organizations pay for failing to implement standard work environment conditions. First, unhealthy employees are likely to absent from

Interagency Prevention and Planning Failures- Hurrican Andrew Research Paper

Interagency Prevention and Planning Failures- Hurrican Andrew - Research Paper Example With each disaster, the US government set up different agencies and bodies to provide help and succor to survivors of the aftermath. The method of providing aid and succor had clear sections of authority and a clear identification of which agency was to do what tasks (Nudell, 1988). Unfortunately, the precision with which these agencies were supposed to work did not happen. These agencies had turned into ‘stove pipes’ and did not cooperate with each other. With very little interagency cooperation, the various federal agencies that were seized with providing help were left powerless and tangled up in bureaucracy and red tape. The result was that thousands of people could not be evacuated to stations built specifically for such tasks. Billions of dollars in funds that were used for infrastructure were wasted (Herman, 2010). This report discusses and focuses on the poor interagency prevention and planning that contributed to the disaster after Hurricane Andrew struck Florida. Morton (2008) has commented on the structure and functioning of the national security and the defense forces that have ambiguous security roles and function and which serve the President of USA. These departments have strong workforce cultures and a deep seated desire to protect their turf and this created stove pies in the departments of national security. These entities tend to work in isolation and prefer to be the bearer of good or bad news. Various departments such as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence - ODNI, Department of Justice - DOJ under various acts ranging from the National Security Act 1947 to the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, 2004 have never managed to bring the various departments to act in a cooperative manner and where a common culture exists. The various national security acts and state security at the national and state levels are uneven. A critical review of Shelby (2011) shows that at the time when