Analysis of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men

617 Words2 Pages

Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior. Juror #3 is very biased against the 19-year-old boy that is being tried, and this affects all of his thoughts and actions regarding the case. He has this bias because his own son hit him in the jaw and ran away from home at the age of 15: “I’ve got a kid…when he was fifteen he hit me in the face…I haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids! You work your heart out [but it’s no use] (21).”According to this quote from the text, this juror condemns all teenagers and feels resentment towards them. He especially feels strongly about the boy being tried, because the boy grew up in the slums, and this juror is also biased against these people who grew up there. It is because of these feelings that he is strongly cemented in his vote of guilty. Juror #10, a garage owner, segregates and divides the world stereotypically into ‘us’ and ‘them.’ ‘Us’ being people living around the rich or middle-class areas, and ‘them’ being people of a different race, or possessing a contrasting skin color, born and raised in the slums (poorer parts of town). It is because of this that he has a bias against the young man on trial, for the young man was born in the slums and was victim to domestic violence since the age of 5. Also, the boy is of a Hispanic descent and is of a different race than this juror, making him fall under the juror’s discriminatory description of a criminal. This is proven on when juror #10 rants: “They don’t need any real big reason to kill someone, either. You know, they get drunk, and bang, someone’s lying in the gutter… most of them, it’s like they have no feelings (59).

Show More
Related

  • Jurors on a Death Penalty Case

    956 Words  | 2 Pages

    One of the most intense group task experiences in the United States is that of serving on the jury of a death penalty case. This forces a group of complete strangers to come together and determine the fate of another’s human beings life. The court case of the State of Ohio v Mark Ducic, was of no exception. Ducic a 47 year old drug addict white male, was accused of committing a double homicide. In accordance with Ohio state law, murdering more than one individual is considered a mass murder and therefore the accused is subject to the possibility of the death penalty. Ducic’s victims included Barbara Davis, his domestic partner and drug addict, as well as a drug user that Ducic was an acquaintance with. The death of Davis was at first believed to be due to an overdose, but police informants identified Ducic’s voice on a recording claiming that he killed her. The other victim, the drug addict, was thought to be eliminated by Ducic for fear that he would inform the police that he killed Davis. Investigators believed that Ducic gave both victims a deathly amount of drugs that would make it appear as though they both simply overdosed. Ducic was found guilty on both occasions, yet a second trial in regards to his sentencing had to occur and another hearing had to be conducted on whether or not to remove the death penalty.

    Read More

  • Prejudice in 12 Angry Men

    1000 Words  | 2 Pages

    12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are the jury for an 18 year old accused of murder. The judge states in the opening scene that it is a premeditated murder in the 1st degree, if found guilty will automatically receive the death penalty. The 18 year old male is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade, in their home. The prosecutors have several eye witness testimonies, and all of the evidence that they could need to convict the 18 year old male. In the movie it takes place on the hottest day of the year in New York City. There are 12 jurors whom are to decide if the evidence is enough to convict the teen of murder in the first degree. In the first initial vote it is 11-1. The only way that the jurors could turn in their votes was if there was unanimous vote either guilty or not guilty among the 12 jurors. As the movie progressed the jurors ended up changing their minds as new evidence was brought to their attention by simple facts that were overlooked by the police and prosecutors in the initial investigation. Tempers were raised, and words flew, there was prejudice and laziness of a few of the jurors that affected the amount of time it took to go over all of the eye witness testimonies and evidence. The eye witness testimonies ended up being proven wrong and some of the evidence was thrown out because it was put there under false pretense.

    Read More

  • Intolerance And Prejudice In The Play Twelve Angry Men

    1285 Words  | 3 Pages

    Twelve angry men is a play about twelve jurors who have to decide if the defendant is guilty of murdering his father, the play consist of many themes including prejudice, intolerance, justice , and courage. The play begins with a judge explaining to the jurors their job and how in order for the boy to be sent to death the vote must be unanimous. The jurors are then locked into a small room on a hot summer day. At first, it seems as though the verdict is obvious until juror eight decides to vote not guilty. From that moment on, the characters begin to show their true colors. Some of the characters appear to be biased and prejudice while others just want justice and the truth. Twelve Angry Men Despite many of the negative qualities we see

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Consensus Analysis

    1168 Words  | 3 Pages

    Twelve Angry Men is a depiction of twelve jurors who deliberate over the verdict of a young defendant accused of murder, highlighting many key communications concepts discussed throughout the semester. One of these concepts was the perspective of a true consensus, the complete satisfaction of a decision by all parties attributed. An array of inferences were illustrated in the movie (some spawning collective inferences) as well as defiance among the jurors. Each of these concepts play a role endorsing, or emphasizing the other. We can analyze the final verdict of the jurors and establish if there was a true consensus affecting their decision. In turn, we can analyze the inferences during the deliberation and directly link how they affect the consensus (or lack thereof). Defiance among the jurors was also directly

    Read More

  • Juror Nine In 12 Angry Men

    352 Words  | 1 Pages

    Based on the development of the personalities of the jurors so far in Act One, I think that juror nine will be most likely to side with juror number eight. Through examining the text presented in Reginald Rose’s play 12 Angry Men, I can infer that juror number nine is most likely to side with the adamant juror eight’s opinion on the verdict of the boy since nine’s opinions, though minimal, shed a miniscule light on his vast inner thoughts on the case. An example of this would be when juror number nine is inputting his view on how fast everyone is moving with the decision of the case when he says “It’s only one night. A man may die” (Rose 25). In other words, juror number nine does not believe that a man’s life should be taken for granted and

    Read More

  • The Rodney King Trial

    1331 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the play Twelve Angry Men, a boy is on trial for supposedly murdering his father after a night of arguing. Rodney King, twenty-five, was beaten by four caucasian Los Angeles Police Department officers on March 3, 1991 (CNN Wire 1). On this day, King was pulled over for exceeding the speed limit while intoxicated (Kaplan 1). The jury of both of these cases played a major role in the verdict of each case. In the play Twelve Angry Men, the twelve men that make up the jury are faced with a difficult decision to make; deciding whether or not a nineteen year old boy was guilty of murder. Fast forwarding forty-three years later, twelve jurors were given the Rodney King case in which they had to decide the fate of the four Los Angeles officers that brutally beat Rodney King, an African-American citizen. Being a member of the jury on the Rodney King case must have been a difficult task given the evidence surrounding the trial.

    Read More

  • Comparing and Contrasting Juror 3 and Juror 8 from Twelve Angry Men

    1056 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the play “Twelve Angry men”, the story line presents a variety of perspectives and opinions between twelve very different men. Some are more likely to be pointed out as prejudice, and others are more focused on reaching fair justice. Clearly, it is quite difficult for different people to vote ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ in unity when coming to a fair decision. In all of the twelve jurors, I have chosen Juror 3 and Juror 8 for contrast and comparison. I believe that Juror number 3 is a very opinionated man, with more differences than similarities comparing with Juror number 8.

    Read More

  • The Old Man Is Guilty In Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men

    493 Words  | 1 Pages

    In the play 12 Angry Men, Reginald Rose describes the trial of a young man who is accused of killing his father. A jury must decide whether to reach a guilty verdict and sentence the nineteen-year-old defendant to death. A lot of evidence proves this teenager is guilty, including the claims of an old man who testified against the boy. However, throughout the play, the twelve jurors thoroughly analyze the evidence of the old man and look at the different aspects and points of view, and eventually, reasonable doubt comes into play, and the boy is proven not guilty.

    Read More

  • Stereotypes In Twelve Angry Men

    804 Words  | 2 Pages

    However, in Twelve Angry Men, Juror Eight defies prejudices in his own beliefs, and eventually in the final verdict. When the eleven jurors are asking the Eighth Juror why he voted “not guilty”, he responds with “It’s just that we’re talking about somebody’s life here. I mean, we can’t decide in five minutes. Suppose we’re wrong?” (12). Even if the Eighth Juror may think that the boy might have actually killed his father, doesn’t mean he did just because the boy grew up in the slums and is a tough kid. No matter where the boy is from or what he looks like, his life is on the line. Thus, don’t jump to conclusions too quickly. Later on, when the jurors are talking about the knife that the boy had, Juror Eight was “saying it’s possible that the boy lost the knife and that someone else stabbed his father with a similar knife.” (22). Just because a violent boy who grew up in a violent family had a knife, doesn’t necessarily mean he is guilty of murder. Thus, things may not always be the way they seem, so don’t judge a book by its

    Read More

  • Examples Of Injustice In To Kill A Mockingbird

    859 Words  | 2 Pages

    Therefore the colour of Tom Robinson’s skin was the defining factor in the jury’s decision. Since the jury declared Tom Robinson guilty, that reveals his fate of going to jail and eventually being killed which is obviously an injustice based on the discrimination against him.

    Read More

  • Juror Eleven In 12 Angry Men

    452 Words  | 1 Pages

    In Reginald Rose’s play “Twelve Angry Men”, a group of jurors must determine the innocence or guilt of a boy accused of murdering his father. The jurors display a medley of demeanors, many of them armed with their own prejudices and motivations. In the case of juror eleven, his motivation is his dedication to the task at hand.

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of The Jury System In 12 Angry Men By Sidney Lumet

    1175 Words  | 3 Pages

    Mention the pros and cons of our jury system and possible alternatives of it. Also, identify the group dynamics of the jury members

    Read More

  • Prejudice In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

    604 Words  | 2 Pages

    “No matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the trues” (page 66). Prejudice can be a dangerous thing, especially when it comes to adjusting somebody’s life. At that time in America a jury consists of twelve men can determine the life or death of one person by giving a unanimous verdict. A typical reflection of this reality is an influential drama “Twelve Anger Men”. Reginald Rose wrote this drama inspired by his experience of being a juror on a manslaughter case to reveal a common social phenomenon of prejudice. To stress the main idea that, Rose presents the key points that biased individuals are less rational or blinding themselves with an unfair judgement about one’s guilt. Moreover, she conveys the facts that stereotype produces an effect on one’s statement. Furthermore, prejudice constantly affect other jurors’ opinion, intentionally or unintentionally. With Rose’s vivid description and clear contrast between each juror, he emphasizes the existence of prejudice and further to spread an idea that prejudice influence the outcome of the trial.

    Read More

  • The Role Of Justice In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

    1441 Words  | 3 Pages

    Yet, the justice system is inevitably susceptible to a flaw, as personal prejudices slip through the initial screening and become apparent in the jury room. In Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men the jury systems imperfections are addressed. He demonstrates the atmosphere of the jury room by introducing twelve characters with unique personalities. A particular character I believe to stand out from the rest would be juror ten. Upon first glance, he comes across as a bigot, but as the play continues he exhibits he is also impatient, arrogant, cantankerous and several other traits.

    Read More

  • Use of Persuasive Argument in 12 Angry Men

    1024 Words  | 3 Pages

    The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in a population. The juror that seemed interesting is Juror #8, who was played by Henry Fonda. Juror #8, or Davis, is an architect, the first dissenter and protagonist in the film. He was the first one to declare that the young man was innocent and he managed to convince the other jurors to see his point of view. Durkheim states that when we respond to deviance, it brings people together (Macionis, 2013, p. 159). We affirm the moral ties that bind us together, which was seen in the movie. At first, almost all of the jurors were so bent on convicting the young man based on their feelings, but they then started to analyze the facts and they came together to make their final decision.

    Read More

More about Analysis of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men

Open Document