Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Juror 3 of 12 angry men
Juror 4 of 12 angry men
12 angry men juror 8
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Juror 3 of 12 angry men
6) The direction of the stabbing wound a) Juror Three argued that the switchblade knife was swung down and in, which was ideal for the defendant considering he was shorter than his father. Juror Three stated, “‘Down and in. That’s how I’d stab a taller man in the chest and that’s how it was done.’” (Rose 61). This quote basically accounts for Juror Three’s beliefs with handling the knife. b) Juror Five reevaluated the proper direction for that knife to be utilized. He stated that “‘[y]ou don’t use this kind of knife that way. You have to hold it like this to release the blade. In order to stab downward, you would have to change your grip.’” Juror Eight then reassured that “‘ the boy is pretty handy with a knife.’” As a result, Juror Five expressed that the boy “‘would go for him underhanded.’” (Rose 61-62). Comprehending that a switchblade knife is correctly used with an underhand and that the defendant upholds experience with knives, the person who murdered the father had to be inexperienced to utilize such an awkward angle for stabbing. 7) What the boy supposedly shouted a) Juror …show more content…
Three alleged that the defendant shouted with true passion and meaning. He proclaimed, “‘[w]ait a minute! What are you trying to give us here? The phrase was, “I’m going to kill you,” and the kid screamed it out at the top of his lungs. Don’t tell me he didn’t mean it. Anybody says a thing like that the way he said it, they mean it...The kid said he was going to kill him and he did kill him.’” (Rose 37). This quote demonstrates that the defendant was utterly furious and he shrieked that “I’m going to kill you” with intention of doing so. b) Juror Eight reassured that numerous people do not actually commit a homicide after proclaimed that they “are going to kill you”.
He stated that “‘[t]his phrase, how many times has each of us used it? Probably hundreds. ‘I could kill you for that, darling.’ ‘If you do that once more, Junior, I’m going to kill you.’ ‘Come on, Rocky, kill him.’ We say it every day. It doesn’t mean we’re going to kill someone... do you really think the boy would shout out a thing like that so the whole neighborhood would hear it? I don’t think so. He’s much too bright for that.’” (Rose 37). Juror Eight essentially connects this death threat to daily usage, meaning that this phrase does not guarantee that someone would murder the target individual. Additionally, he believes that the boy would not actually shout a phrase with that profound intensity without attracting the concern of other
bystanders.
The jury in trying to let the defendant go considered if there were any circumstances that would provide say as a self-defense claim to justify this horrific crime of murder of two people named Mr. Stephan Swan and Mr. Mathew Butler. Throughout the guilt/innocent phase, the jury believes not to have heard convincing evidence the victims were a threat to the defendant nor a sign the defendant was in fear for his life before he took the victims’ lives.
In chapter one we are introduced to our narrator, Ponyboy. Ponyboy is raised by his two older brothers Darry and Soda. They’re all apart of a gang called the “greasers” which is joined by Dally, Johnny, Two-bit, and Steve. There is another group called “ socs” which stands for socials, and everyone in that group is very wealthy. One day Ponyboy got jumped by a socs group, but luckily Darry was there to help before anything too serious happened. The first element of literature is characterization. Ponyboy is a keen observer, trying to make sense of the complexities of those around him. At the beginning of the story, he stops and spends several pages giving us brief character description on Steve, Two-Bit, Dally, and Johnny. This is also known as direct characterization. He tells us that Steve is "cocky and smart" ( Hinton 9). Two-Bit can 't stop joking around and goes to school for "kicks" (Hinton 10) rather than to learn. Dallas, he says, is "tougher, colder, meaner" ( Hinton 10) than the rest of them.
Juror number eight is the main protagonist, he also a reserved with his thoughts, yet very strategic with them. He is the defender of the down trodden victim. He has a calm rational approach to everything and he reveals the gaps in the testimonies placed against the defendant. These examples would be; that the old man couldn’t have seen the boy run out of the house, as the old man had a limp and therefore could not make it to the door in time. The old lady across the road could have never saw the boy stab his father, due to she wasn’t wearing her glasses and it was pitch black. Number eight is a man that s...
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
Aristotle’s rhetorical triangle links three elements of arguing together: the speaker, the story, and the audience. The relationship between the elements determines the speaker’s argument and whether it will be successful in oratory or literature. Ethos, Logos and Pathos are each different aspects of the argument that must be balanced in order to succeed in persuading or convincing an audience. Ethos, or character, relates to the speaker’s credibility that the audience appeals to: it is useful when persuading a group of people to trust what you are saying or doing. Logos, or logic, is a way of convincing and appealing by reason, truth, and facts. Pathos relates to the audience’s emotions and their response to what the speaker is saying.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
...c killer. It is easier to be prejudiced against something than to take the effort to understand, so the jury accepted this simple depiction of Meursault, without attempting to understand his more complex nature. And the absurdity of it all is that by lying Meursault could be released, or get a lesser punishment. The court completely disregards the value of human life by giving a man the most severe form of punishment, even though he told the truth.
... 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.
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...
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”.
Jones was around. “During all of that week I was as friendly to the old man as I could be, and warm, and loving...For seven nights I did this, seven long nights, every night at midnight. Always the eye was closed, so it was impossible for me to do the work. For it was not the old man I felt I had to kill; it was the eye, his Evil Eye...In the quiet night, in the dark silence of the bedroom my anger became fear — for the heart was beating so loudly that I was sure someone must hear. The time had come! I rushed into the room, crying, “Die! Die!” The old man gave a loud cry of fear as I fell upon him and held the bedcovers tightly over his head.” Mr. Smith could control his behavior very well. He was able to control his behavior towards the victim while he planned to kill him. For seven nights the defendant went into Mr. Jones’ bedroom and decided on his own not to kill him. The defendant chose not to kill him until the eighth night, the night that he was
The jurors all vote on what they think and the vote is 11-1 this leads to both sides explaining why their side is right then the side of the innocent presents the major pieces of evidence such as the second switch blade and the assumption that the lady that saw the boy murder his father wore glasses and saw him through low light levels