12 Angry Men

844 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: 12 angry men

Juror #1 originally thought that the boy was guilty. He was convinced that the evidence was concrete enough to convict the boy. He continued to think this until the jury voted the first time and saw that one of the jurors thought that the boy was innocent. Then throughout the movie, all of the jurors were slowly convinced that the boy was no guilty. His first rhetoric appeal used was logos. He based his guilty verdict on the logical information provided in the court room. He continued to feel this way until later in the movie when he changed his appeal to pathos. The decision to change his mind was caused by the other jurors starting to change their minds. As the one juror that felt the boy was innocent continued to try and convince the others that there was a chance that they could all be wrong, most all of the jurors were starting to see the possibility. Every time there was a new reason why he could be innocent, each juror had more to think about. Finally, the argument about the glasses swayed everyone just enough to withdrawal the guilty verdict and set the boy free. My next claim is in regards to the “old man” juror. If it were not for him voting not guilty the second time, the boy would have been found guilty. He said the reason he voted that way was because of that one juror standing up to the other 11 jurors. He felt that everyone needed to hear all of the arguments because they were dealing with a man’s life. Thanks to that man, the boy was saved. His original rhetoric appeal was also logos. He was basing his verdict choice on the logical information given in the court room. He was using all of the testimony and evidence to make what he thought was a logical decision. As the evening went on, I feel that his appeal was changed to ethos because of the juror that felt that he was innocent. He was impressed by this man because he was able to stand in front of the group and stick with his guilty verdict and not be swayed at all. The “old man” stood up for the man by telling everyone that they basically owe it to the boy to listen to all of the arguments.

Show More
Related

  • Rhetorical Appeals

    567 Words  | 2 Pages

    After reviewing this week’s episodes of serial, and given our topic, I found that the Rhetorical Appeals are directly linked to the court cases. These Rhetorical Appeals (Ethos, Pathos, and Logos), are used throughout both cases. From Jay’s case, it’s clear that Pathos and Ethos are two main elements supporting his defense. However in Adnan’s case, Logos was the prevalent appeal when defending his innocence.

    Read More

  • Stereotypes In 12 Angry Men

    723 Words  | 2 Pages

    Juror three wanted so badly for the young boy to be guilty that every time any of the witness’s testimonies were questioned or tested, he would not adhere to the facts. With that being said, he would only believe what everyone else beside the boy told him. When the group tested whether the old man actually heard and witnessed what he did, juror three was quick to say that he didn’t care. He didn’t care about time, logic, or reasoning. The last piece of evidence he had that justified his verdict was that the woman witnessed it. He said if all the other evidence was thrown out that last piece was all they needed. When the jury proved that she could have worn glasses and could have been mistaken, he refused to believe that there was any possibility of a mistake because that would make him have to change his verdict. Therefore, he reverted back to the other evidence then realized he couldn’t because he said to throw away the other

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Dramatic Monologue

    500 Words  | 1 Pages

    They have to change their minds especially the third juror because he is the only one who really wants the kid to receive justice even if he didn’t kill his own father. I need to do something to change their minds I am a shy young kid, I really have no say in this. But I think that they are starting to loosen up a bit like two more jurors are not saying innocent which is good and the only ones that are saying guilty are three and ten. However, they are really serious about putting this kid in jail. Everyone is shouting and yelling but finally ten gave up and is saying innocent. Juror three is still not giving up he is still angry his face hasn’t changed at all he must be really pissed at all of us for betraying him. But finally he in the end said not guilty and then walked

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Persuasive Essay

    445 Words  | 1 Pages

    The problem that has been tormenting the eight juror is that no other jurors, other then the fifth juror agree with him. The eight juror claims that the boy is not guilty, but since everyone believes that he committed the murder, he has to convince them that he's right. Everyone is also accusing him for his opinion, which is making him frustrated.

    Read More

  • Group Participation and Interaction Explored in 12 Angry Men

    1101 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...irrespective of what majority says. Your participation has the ability to change what others think completely. Due to Jury number 8's participation, the ratio of 1:11 votes(not guilty:guilty) changed to an over all vote of not guilty. Communication doesn't happen non-verbally right at the beginning stages of the group development. If the movie was “11 Angry Men” with Jury number 8 excluded, the other jurors would've done just given vote once, and decided the fate of the boy. Why did the group make its decision not guilty? The answer is plain and simple: “Due to group participation and interaction.” If you were in the place of juror number 8 or any other juror, would you've spoken for the boy or not?

    Read More

  • Descriptions of the Character in the 12 Angry Men

    648 Words  | 2 Pages

    Juror #3- He is a very proud man. He thinks that the boy is guilty. He has a problem with juror #8. He always tries to contradict juror#8. Every time juror #8 says something, he always as something to say to go against him. He has a lot of personal background that clouds his decisions on the boy. His personal background his that he has a kid that did a similar thing to him and that’s why is was hard for him to see the evidence clearly. At the end when he finally exploded and told everyone that the boy is guilty. Then juror #8 tells this isn't your boy and then he votes not guilty.

    Read More

  • John T. Noonar Abortion In The American Context Rhetorical Analysis

    468 Words  | 1 Pages

    He uses many effective appeals such as, ethos, pathos, logos, and Kairos. The first appeal he used was ethos. He stated how unethical abortion is by stating that "Until the child in the womb is visible, the Supreme court has determined

    Read More

  • Conflict In 12 Angry Men

    810 Words  | 2 Pages

    The first conflict they face was about the knife the killer used to kill his victim. The evidence said that it was a very rare knife that the boy bought in a little pawn shop before going to his house and stab his father. On the other hand, the boy admits that he bought the knife, but it falls off his pocket in his way to the movie theater. Juror number 8 said that it was possible because he bought the same knife at the same neighborhood the kid bought the presumed murderer weapon. Juror number 8 was trying to say that it was possible that someone else could have bought the same kind of knife to kill the target. Then Mr. Davis called a second vote, if the 11 jurors maintain their guilty point of view, he would join them, but if someone else vote not guilty, they would have to

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay On Jury 8

    991 Words  | 2 Pages

    At the beginning of the movie, a young man is being tried in court for premeditated homicide. The judge states that this is the most serious charge tried in the criminal courts and that if the young man is found guilty, he will get the death penalty. The judge then sends the main characters, the jury on their way to decide the boys fate. As soon as the jury got into the room, they started their discussion by casting an unanimous vote. Everyone agrees that the boy is guilty except for jury eight. He states that the boy had a rough eighteen years of his life and that might have been a motive for him to kill his father. Jury eight also says he just doesn't want to send the boy to death without talking about the case. Jury ten says the boy is automatically guilty because he is from the slums and his type of people are susceptible to becoming criminals. Jury four goes on to explain how the boy did the murder because the boy stated that he went to the movies with his friends but

    Read More

  • Film Analysis: Twelve Angry Men

    1862 Words  | 4 Pages

    The film begins as we hear the judge’s instructions and see the young man we later learn is accused of murdering his father. The judge states, if there is a reasonable doubt you must bring me a verdict of not guilty and further says that it must be unanimous and the penalty is death. Twelve jurors, men of different classes with various backgrounds, file in to the jury room given the incredible responsibility of deciding whether there is reasonable doubt whether the accused boy committed the murder. Davis (juror #8) takes his responsibility to carry out justice seriously. We learn early on that he is the only one to initially vote not guilty. He seems to fully understand the concept of reasonable doubt and the value of human life. Throughout the deliberations he uses ethos, pathos and logos along with a calm and respectful demeanor to get the other eleven men to change their minds. He makes everyone believe that he entered

    Read More

  • The Importance Of The Criminal Justice System In Twelve Angry Men

    1091 Words  | 3 Pages

    One surprising fact would be that the case would’ve come to a fast conclusion of a guilty verdict had it not been for Juror number eight disagreeing. He had a firm belief that the kid was innocent that he would stop at nothing to convince the other jurors he had a valid point. Yet, society has greatly changed and to come across someone so influential is rare. For starters, a jury trial is meant to represent the community in which the trial is taking place and it should include an equal amount of diversity compared to the community. Since this case took place in New York, it is impractical to have an all-white male jury today.

    Read More

  • Use of Persuasive Argument in 12 Angry Men

    1024 Words  | 3 Pages

    ... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.

    Read More

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

    1056 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...ted by peer pressure. At the end of the play, after all the other jurors joined up with Juror 8, Juror 3 was the only one who still voted ‘guilty’. This time, Juror 3’s perseverance collapsed and he finally voted on ‘not guilty’. Juror 3 is obviously not as brave as Juror 8 as to stand up for his singular thought on the crime. A reason for this might be because he doesn’t have the intelligence to use good arguments to prove his stance.

    Read More

  • Analysis of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men

    617 Words  | 2 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.

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men: Conflict in the Courtroom

    587 Words  | 2 Pages

    The jurors had several conflicts in disagreeing with each other and it didn't help that they would shout over one another. The very first conflict is when juror 8 voted not guilty against the 11 guilty votes. The other 11 jurors don't seem to want to hear this man out; they don't want to hear why he has voted not guilty. Some of these men, jurors 3 and 7, just want to get this case over with so they can get on with their lives. They don't think it is imperative enough to look over the evidence and put themselves in the place of the defendant. They get upset with this man and try to get him to vote guilty.

    Read More

More about 12 Angry Men

Open Document