12 Angry Men Persuasive Essay

445 Words1 Page

The jury was locked in the room to deliberate because they don't want them to leave until they have come to a decision. If the jury was allowed to leave, they might just go when they want and not return. Also, the accused could try to come in to convince the jury that he is innocent. The tenth juror says 'em when he is referring to kids, because he is comfortable talking about them. When he says them to the other jurors, he is less comfortable talking to them so he refers to them in a formal manner. (Rose, 10) It was not a good idea to take a vote without a discussion, because the other jurors do not know other opinions that might change their mind. The eighth juror voted not guilty because he did think about all of the details that happened the night of the murder. It turned out that the jurors had over looked a few …show more content…

That just makes him guilty for another crime, and makes him a suspect for the murder because there are not many knifes like that. He also is making the other jurors uncomfortable, which will lead them to not trust him, and not change their votes to not guilty. The second juror to vote not guilty is the Fifth Juror. He voted not guilty because the eight juror presented some information about the night of the murder, and he agreed with him. 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. I do not think the third juror is a sadist. He just wants this whole thing to be over, and he is siding with the bigger side, so if the life of the kid goes into a vote, he can be on the winning side. The eight juror is still stuck up about no one but the fifth and eleventh juror joining his

Show More
Related

  • Justice was Served in the Film Twelve Angry Men

    386 Words  | 1 Pages

    The jurors took a vote and saw the ratio at eleven for guilty and only one for not guilty. When they repeatedly attacked his point of view, his starting defense was that the boy was innocent until proven guilty, not the opposite as the others had seen it. After Henry Fonda instilled doubt in the mind of another juror, the two worked together to weaken the barriers of hatred and prejudice that prevented them from seeing the truth. The jurors changed their minds one at a time until the ratio stood again at eleven to one, this time in favor of acquittal. At this point, the jurors who believed the defendant was not guilty worked together to prove to the one opposing man that justice would only be found if they returned a verdict of not guilty. They proved this man wrong by using his personal experiences in life to draw him into a series of deadly contradictions.

    Read More

  • Uncertainty In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

    980 Words  | 2 Pages

    Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three

    Read More

  • Jurors on a Death Penalty Case

    956 Words  | 2 Pages

    Juror 12: I disagree because a lot of people do go to the schools that are older, and educate people that don’t have no clue who they are. Be it grandmothers, whatever, and I want to just…

    Read More

  • Prejudice in 12 Angry Men

    1000 Words  | 2 Pages

    ... I've lived among them all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that. I mean, they're born liars.” In this statement you can clearly tell his prejudice against the kid, just because of where he was raised. Juror # 10 and juror # 3 has prejudice against the kid. Juror # 3 has personal experience with a kid like the accused. “Reminded of his own family's personal crisis, Juror # 3 tells the jurors of his own disrespectful, teen aged boy who hit him on the jaw when he was 16. Now 22 years old, the boy hasn't been seen for two years, and the juror is embittered: "Kids! Ya work your heart out."” This is a direct example of juror # 3’s prejudice against the accused. When prejudice was in effect in the movie, it clouded the judgments of the jurors that were prejudice against the boy just because he was raised in the slums.

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Dramatic Monologue

    500 Words  | 1 Pages

    But I won't do that or I will be dragged out of the jury room, and I won’t be able to stop juror three again or save this kid’s life from jail. 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.

    Read More

  • Twelve Angry Men

    1173 Words  | 3 Pages

    Often times within a jury, participants may be tempted to reach a quick verdict in order to get over with it and go home. So, their conclusions are usually flawed, hasty generalizations with no proper judgement behind them. In the play, all the jurors, besides Juror #8, claimed that a “unique” knife was identified as a murder weapon and the boy, or supposed murderer, was seen with it although he had said he lost it. ...

    Read More

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

    1056 Words  | 3 Pages

    These two jurors are almost the plain opposite of each other. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant man accustomed of forcing his wishes and views upon others. On the other hand, Juror 8 is an honest man who keeps an open mind for both evidence and reasonable doubt. Since these two people are indeed very different, they both have singular thoughts relating to the murder case. Juror 8 is a man who is loyal to justice. In the beginning of the play, he was the only one to vote ‘not guilty’ the first time the twelve men called a vote. Although his personality is reflected on being a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man, he is still a very persistent person who will fight for justice to be done. Juror 8 is a convincing man who presents his arguments well, but can also be seen as manipulative. An example would be when he kept provoking Juror 3 until he finally said “I’m going to kill you" to Juror 8. He did this because he wanted to prove that saying "I’ll kill you" doesn’t necessarily mean that Juror 3 was actually going to kill him. Juror 3 is a totally different character. He is a stubborn man who can be detected with a streak of sad...

    Read More

  • Analysis of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men

    617 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Bias In Twelve Angry Men (Film)

    1027 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...at the truth is. No one ever will, I suppose. Nine of us now seem to feel that the defendant is innocent, but we're just gambling on probabilities. We may be wrong. We may be trying to return a guilty ma to the community. No one can really know. But we have a reasonable doubt, and this is a safeguard which has enormous value in our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it's sure. We nine can't understand how you three are still so sure.' [Juror 8, page 53] The most prejudiced Juror of them all, number 3, has seen himself as the father and the boy as his estranged son.

    Read More

  • Analytical Essay On 12 Angry Men

    639 Words  | 2 Pages

    In this single moment of clarity, he is convinced that the old man is distorting the truth. He says “... He was dragging his left leg and trying to hide it because he was ashamed. I think I know him better than anyone here. This is a quiet, frightened, insignificant old man who has been nothing all his life, who has never had recognition… This is very important. It would be so hard for him to recede into the background…”(page 36) Sharing this argument, juror number nine shifts the direction of the discussion. No longer is he speaking about facts and evidence, but about an emotional connection to an old man who wants to feel important for once in his life. Although he is just assuming this based off of context clues, he manages to affect the other jurors. He manages to question the validity of the old man's testimony by connecting with him at a personal level, and for the most part it's

    Read More

  • Stereotypes In 12 Angry Men

    723 Words  | 2 Pages

    A juror of reason would use facts and evidence; instead juror three leaned on stereotypes and prejudices to obscure the truth. He leaned on the fact that the boy was from the slums and the stereotype that he must be up to no good to convince other members that the defendant was just young trash and could not be innocent because of his upbringing. Juror three’s prejudices come from the fact that it is a case involving a young boy who is defying his father. Juror three already has a strong prejudice against children. His son has grown up, challenged his authority and rejected his values. This is why he is so quick to judge the boy on

    Read More

  • The Runaway Jury by John Grisham

    2482 Words  | 5 Pages

    One person both sides couldn't find any information on was Nicholas Easter. He seemed rather neutral which is good for both sides but not being able to find out his past made them nervous. Nicholas had covered his tracks rather well along with Marlee his accomplice. The two of them wanted Nicholas on that jury for personal as well as monetary reasons. Their hard work was paid off because Nicholas along with eleven other people was selected as the jurors.

    Read More

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

    1091 Words  | 3 Pages

    Twelve Angry Men brings up a few issues the criminal justice system has. The jury selection is where issue number one arises. “A jury of one’s peer’s acts as an important check in cases where a defendant fears that the local justice system may have a prejudice against him, or in corruption cases in which the judiciary itself may be implicated” (Ryan). Deciding one 's future or even fate, in this case, is no easy task, as depicted by the 8th juror.

    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

  • The 12 Angry Men Film

    1377 Words  | 3 Pages

    The film 12 Angry Men consisted of twelve members of the jury who tried to solve a murder trial case. Trapped in a room, all men put their heads together by communicating and listening to each other. Each juror voted unanimously and in order for them to make a decision every juror had to agree to the same thing. However, out of all the jurors (Henry Fonda) the architect had a different perspective. Just when all eleven jurors had agreed that the boy was guilty the architect stood up and said the boy was not guilty. The case was about a lady who had given her testimony in court swearing she saw the little boy kill his own father. One boy's fate is on one man’s hand. As the architect tried to prove his point towards the others, the old juror

    Read More

More about 12 Angry Men Persuasive Essay

Open Document