Aidan Collins 12 Men Practice Democracy “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”- Winston Churchill. Emotions, bias, and many other factors of the human mind make up all the reasons that democracy can fail sometimes. One of the most democratic countries in the world, the US, has these same problems appear in its attempt at a fair and democratic legal system. For this reason, the legal system in America experiences loads of mistakes as a result of clouded judgment from the jury due to irrational reasoning. In the book, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a boy is on trial for the alleged murder of his father. The story takes the reader through the arguments and decisions …show more content…
Juror 8 has no better reason to vote “not guilty” other than the sympathy he feels for the boy which he elaborates by saying, “Look, this boy's been kicked around all his life...He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years.”(pg 13) While Juror 8 is pivotal in saving the boy from death, it can still be said that he exemplified prejudice in the form of reverse discrimination. The evidence was stacked against the boy, and for all anyone knew, he really could have murdered his father. By letting his emotions get in the way of the trial, Juror 8 was able to convince everyone with circumstantial evidence that the crime never took place. He ran away with his idea that the boy was innocent all because he feared submitting the final vote that sent him to the gallows. People who don’t have what it takes to handle such a serious case should not be allowed to take place in the legal process if emotions or prejudice guide their …show more content…
The idea that people are not perfect is constantly reiterated throughout the story. This holds true for certain characters that show a lack of empathy, and moral obligation to give the boy a fair trial. Whether some characters have ulterior motives or are just insensitive, their contributions to the trial only blur the lines between what and who can be trusted. As the characters enter the room, Juror 12 attempts to make small talk with Juror 8 by saying that the case,“had a lot interest for me. No Dead spots- know what I mean? I’ll tell you we were lucky to get a murder case.” (pg8) His comments show complete and utter disregard for the enormity of the job they were selected for. Juror 12 thinks of the trial as nothing more than a dramatized tv show rather than real life. The lack of maturity is stunning, but unsurprising in the world. For this reason, the legal system cannot dare uphold its character when the men who take part in it can be as dimwitted as Juror
Juror 6 seems to be part of one of the characters’ whose intentions exhibit otherwise. He proclaims vociferously, “It’s pretty obvious, I mean, I was convinced from the first day”. This sentiment provides compelling evidence as to what the Juror’s intentions and perspectives were, towards the alleged sixteen-year-old. In addition, an important factor that can be taken into consideration is the factor of civic responsibility, which he didn’t uphold properly. In fact, it was proved to have biased, prejudiced and pre-conceptualised
Twelve Angry Men, is a play written by Reginald Rose. The play is about the process of individuals and a court case, which is determining the fate of a teenager. It presents the themes of justice, independence and ignorance. Rose emphasises these three themes through the characters and the dialogue. Justice is the principle of moral rightness or equity. This is shown through juror number eight who isn’t sure whether or not the boy is actually innocent or guilty, but he persists to ask questions and convinces the other jurors to think about the facts first. Independence is shown through both juror number three and ten. They both believe that the defendant is guilty until they both realise that they can not relate there past experiences with the court case. Ignorance is shown throughout all the jurors during the play, it is also brought out through the setting of the play.
Prejudices cause peoples’ perceptions to be altered. The jurors are presented quite a bit about the boy’s background, and his records. Juror Ten struggles to see past the stereotypes and judges the boy based on his past actions. Juror Ten claims,” He’s a common ignorant slob. He don’t even speak good English,” (326). What is so ironic about this statement is that Ten claims the boy is dense and bases this claim on the fact that he can’t speak English well. However as corrected by Eleven, it is “doesn’t” not “does”. Perhaps the boy learned from his mistakes and sought to change. That is what life is all about. We fall down and hopefully learn from our mistakes so that we can create a better future for ourselves. Juror Ten is firmly set on the idea that the court covered everything by repeatedly saying, “They proved it,’’ on page 317. Unlike Eight he is not open-minded. As a juror it is important to be skeptics because the in court, lawyers may have presented information in such a way that information is perceived differently. Also crucial information may have not have been analyzed carefully. It’s important not to dwell on the past; its also keep prejudices from exposing you to
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
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.
... 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.
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
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.
Despite knowing how angry the other men would be at him, the 8th juror stood up for the defendant and did what he could to make sure the boy had a fair trial. From the beginning, Juror eight was clearly confident in what he believed in and did not care about how foolish he looked. The confidence he showed brought the other jurors to rethink their vote. Juror nine was the first person to recognize the amount of courage it took for juror eight to stand up against the men. After being the first to change his vote nine explains “This gentleman chose to stand alone against us. That’s his right. It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone even if you believe in something very strongly. He left the verdict up to us. He gambled for support and I gave it to him. I want to hear more. The vote is ten to two.” The 9th juror agreed with the eight juror about wanting justice. By standing up for justice he gave nine the courage to stand up for the same reason. Juror eight continued to be consistent with what he believed in. Never did he
This event in his personal life was dramatically influencing his decision in the jury room, but he was able to overcome his personal prejudice from the efforts of juror 8 “it’s hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this, and no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth” This quote shows juror 8’s understanding towards juror 3 in particular, and in turn allows him to overcome his personal prejudice. The young boy’s social status and childhood upbringing also influenced many of the juror’s perspective on him. The men came with pre conceived ideas about boy, just because he grew up in a slum, and allowed this reason and possibly their own personal reason to obscure their view on the
He based his guilty verdict on the logical information provided in the courtroom. 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 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.
...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?
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...
He was the one man keeping the young boy alive since the preliminary vote was tallied at eleven to one. Juror Eight made every point of his persuasion easy to accept and acknowledge. He went about the discussion with the intent to be as logical as possible, appealing to ethics, so the rest of the jury couldn't easily object to his ideas, even if this meant addressing the boy’s appearance and home life, “Look, this boy’s been kicked around all his life. You know, living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. That’s not a very good head start.
Especially in the start when juror#9, the old man votes non guilty in order to extent his support for the protagonist, juror#8. He did that because he felt that juror#8 was the only one standing against the decision and if pitches in, the jury might face it difficult to convince two people, therefore will start looking at the evidences more deeply and clearly. The protagonist influenced every single person in the jury one after the other with his logical capability. He was consistent with his thought of discussing the evidences so that justice is given to the boy. He corners few people in the jury with his logical ability, so that the statements about the case which the jury believed as facts, goes haywire. He as a single person had minority influence in many occasions in the