Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Is juror 8 and juror 3 among twelve angry men
Juror 4 of 12 angry men
12 Angry Men comprehensive essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Derrick Nichols November 2, 2017 Management and Organizational Behavior Professor Shirley Wang 12 Angry Men Movie Analysis Davis (Juror #8) was an individual who cares about justice and who was willing to stand up against a crowd to do the right thing for another individual despite his mistakes. In the beginning of the movie he came off "as very soft spoken but throughout the movie he changes that. There were eleven votes for guilty. Juror 8 was the only opposing vote. Juror #8 believes that the defendant deserves a little empathy and believed that he could influenced that to the other jurors. I believe that Juror #8 was the knowledgeable juror of the 12 jurors on the case. Juror #8's arguments was not catching the attention of the other jurors
The book “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a book about twelve jurors who are trying to come to a unanimous decision about their case. One man stands alone while the others vote guilty without giving it a second thought. Throughout the book this man, the eighth juror, tries to provide a fair trial to the defendant by reviewing all the evidence. After reassessing all the evidence presented, it becomes clear that most of the men were swayed by each of their own personal experiences and prejudices. Not only was it a factor in their final decisions but it was the most influential variable when the arbitration for the defendant was finally decided.
We are all different. We are all at least biased on one topic. Some people just look at the surface, while others dig deeper into the facts that were given. Reginald Rose demonstrated these points beautifully in 12 Angry Men. All of the Jurors bring a special part of their personality to the jury room, which is the beauty of having a jury. All of the jurors are different in their own unique way,
The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “You 're not going to tell us that we 're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I 've lived among 'em all my life. You can 't believe a word they say. I mean, they 're born liars.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground
“Courage - a perfect sensibility of the measure of danger, and a mental willingness to endure it.” Courageous people understand the danger that they face when they act how they do. That is what courage is all about. Many historical events occur due to people having the courage to do what they think is right, or because of those who use their courage to do what they want. Having the courage to stand alone in one’s beliefs may be one of the hardest thing a person can do.
Juror number one, Martin played a leadership role by leading their session. He was very firm but calm. He ensured all jury members had the opportunity to exercise their rights on the day-to-day affairs of their deliberations. In the movie, he never lord his acclaimed role over his peers. He tried to seek their approval through a democratic process by voting either privately or publicly in the jury room. This is a quality needed for a jury leadership. He was a professional high school coach, as such, he was able to use his role as a leader to champion his agenda while maintaining the sanity in the jury room. Even though, he voted guilty in the beginning proceeding he later changed his decision to not guilty after numerous facts and evidence were presented by his peers. For this reason, I choose him as one of the member on my legal team
Juror 8 used some valid reasoning to convince juror 9 that the boy could possibly have been not guilty. Everyone else still continues to argue that the boy is guilty. Eventually, with more reasoning, others begin to understand how the boy could be proven not guilty. Each of these men had their own personalities and opinions on the case. Juror 1 was the leader of the group.
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...
For this project we viewed the original 1957 version of Twelve Angry Men, an American Drama, adapted from the teleplay written by Reginald Rose with the same name starring Henry Fonda as the lead role.
Fight club is a drama that is based on the novel “Fight Club.” There are two main characters, the narrator and a character named Tyler Durden. The narrator doesn’t have a name and is played by Edward Norton. The character Tyler Durden is played by Brad Pitt and is suppose to be who the narrator wants to be. The movie is about a man who has insomnia and is trying to find a way to help him sleep. When he visits the doctor, the doctor tells him that he isn’t suffering my insomnia and he should visit a support group. So the narrator starts to go to these support groups and there he lets go and cries. He realizes that him crying and letting
In viewing 12 Angry Men, we see face to face exactly what man really is capable of being. We see different views, different opinions of men such as altruism, egoism, good and evil. It is no doubt that human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics, which make them unique. It is safe to say that our actions, beliefs, and choices separate us from animals and non-livings. The 20th century English philosopher, Martin Hollis, once said, “Free will – the ability to make decisions about how to act – is what distinguishes people from non-human animals and machines 1”. He went to describe human beings as “self conscious, rational, creative. We can fall in love, write sonnets or plan for tomorrow. We are capable of faith, hope and charity, and for that matter, of envy, hated and malice. We know truth from error, right from wrong 2.” Human nature by definition is “Characteristics or qualities that make human beings different from anything else”. With this said, the topic of human nature has been around for a very long time, it is a complex subject with no right or wrong answer. An American rabbi, Samuel Umen, gave examples of contradictions of human nature in his book, Images of Man. “He is compassionate, generous, loving and forgiving, but also cruel, vengeful, selfish and vindictive 3”. Existentialism by definition is, “The belief that existence comes before essence, that is, that who you are is only determined by you yourself, and not merely an accident of birth”. A French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, is the most famous and influential 20th - century existentialist. He summed up human nature as “existence precedes essence”. In his book, Existentialism and Human Emotions, he explained what he meant by this. “It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will be something, and he himself will have made what he will be 4”. After watching 12 Angry Men, the prominent view on human nature that is best portrayed in the movie is that people are free to be whatever they want because as Sartre said, “people create themselves every moment of everyday according to the choices they make 5”.
First of all, the Juror has extremely different beliefs than the other Juror’s. Juror 8 beliefs that everyone should be innocent until proven guilty. “You know--living
Juror #8 raised the question, “Why do you think he is guilty?” Instantly, one saw the effects that groupthink was taking on this collection of impatient people. Juror #8 saw the situation differently, however. In the film, 12 Angry Men, people’s true colors were really brought out–whether that be rage, racism, or selfishness.
Juror Seven just doesn’t care about the lower class. Juror Ten is a rude man that give the upper class a bad name. And Juror Eight is a man that thinks that every man deserves to have justice. Juror Three is a man that is completely stuck
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.
Twelve Angry Men screenplay writer Reginald Rose once stated: “ It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone even if you believe in something very strongly.” In the film Twelve Angry Men, twelve jurors have to decide the justice of a young h/Hispanic boy. Every juror except one votes guilty, which meant that the jurors have to deliberate longer. The final decision the jurors make at the end of the film is found not guilty. The main aspects of the film include: setting, themes, and counter arguments. Every aspect has its own importance. The setting is filmed in one room. The themes display topics that deal with real life situations. Also the counter arguments are important because they also contribute to determining if the boy is found guilty