Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The analysis of the 8 jurors in the twelve angry men
Juror 4 of 12 angry men
12 Angry Men: Compare & Contrast
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The analysis of the 8 jurors in the twelve angry men
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. For example, the third juror states in his monologue “Yeah, well I've got one. He's twenty. We did everything for that boy… When he was sixteen we had a battle. He hit me in the face. He's big, y'know. I haven't seen him in two years. Rotten kid.”(page 18) This quote alone proves that juror number eight …show more content…
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
The play, ‘Twelve Angry men’, written by Reginald Rose, explores the thrilling story of how twelve different orientated jurors express their perceptions towards a delinquent crime, allegedly committed by a black, sixteen-year-old. Throughout the duration of the play, we witness how the juror’s background ordeals and presumptuous assumptions influence the way they conceptualise the whole testimony itself.
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...
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.
“No matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the trues” (page 66). Prejudice can be a dangerous thing, especially when it comes to adjusting somebody’s life. At that time in America a jury consists of twelve men can determine the life or death of one person by giving a unanimous verdict. A typical reflection of this reality is an influential drama “Twelve Anger Men”. Reginald Rose wrote this drama inspired by his experience of being a juror on a manslaughter case to reveal a common social phenomenon of prejudice. To stress the main idea that, Rose presents the key points that biased individuals are less rational or blinding themselves with an unfair judgement about one’s guilt. Moreover, she conveys the facts that stereotype produces an effect on one’s statement. Furthermore, prejudice constantly affect other jurors’ opinion, intentionally or unintentionally. With Rose’s vivid description and clear contrast between each juror, he emphasizes the existence of prejudice and further to spread an idea that prejudice influence the outcome of the trial.
In America, every individual has the right to a fair trial, but how fair is the trial? When an individual is on trial, his or her life is on the line, which is decided by twelve strangers. However, who is to say that these individuals take their role seriously and are going to think critically about the case? Unfortunately, there is no way to monitor the true intentions of these individuals and what they feel or believe. In the movie, Twelve Angry Men, out of the twelve jurors’ only one was willing to make a stance against the others, even though the evidence seemed plausible against the defendant. Nevertheless, the justice system is crucial; however, it is needs be reformed.
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
...a unanimous vote of not guilty. The final scene takes place signifying the "adjourning stage". Two of the jurors, eight and three exchange the only character names mentioned during the film. The entire process of groupthink occurs in multiple ways that display its symptoms on individual behavior, emotions, and personal filters. These symptoms adversity affected the productivity throughout the juror's debate. In all, all twelve men came to an agreement but displayed group social psychological aspects.
In the play “Twelve Angry men”, the story line presents a variety of perspectives and opinions between twelve very different men. Some are more likely to be pointed out as prejudice, and others are more focused on reaching fair justice. Clearly, it is quite difficult for different people to vote ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ in unity when coming to a fair decision. In all of the twelve jurors, I have chosen Juror 3 and Juror 8 for contrast and comparison. I believe that Juror number 3 is a very opinionated man, with more differences than similarities comparing with Juror number 8.
576). In 12 Angry Men, the jury that is voting is a death-qualified jury and all but one wants to convict. They are more prejudiced towards this Hispanic boy who could very well be innocent. In Young’s (2004) study, he proved that death-qualified juries were more likely to have prejudiced views of minorities that they are more willing to convict. In this study, he took a poll that resulted in the death-qualified juries saying that it is worse to let the guilty go free than to convict an innocent person. In both the film and Young’s (2004) study, it is shown that death-qualified juries are very quick to convict when they have someone’s life in their
As the jury’s deliberation session commences, the jurors have the privilege of familiarizing with one another. In their conversation, the audience cannot help but recognize the informal anonymity in their feeling that the defendant is guilty of his accused crime. However, before during these moments, juror 2 makes it clear that he has never been in jury before, while juror 3 confesses that he was asleep during the court session. Even more interesting, juror 7 makes it clear that he is in a hurry to attend a ball game, and as such, the jury ought to finalize their general reaction from the court sessions to a guilty verdict. When the jurors ultimately take their positions around the jury table, jury 4 suggests that the jurors should take a preliminary vote, as the jury customs dictates.
In the play 12 Angry Men, Reginald Rose describes the trial of a young man who is accused of killing his father. A jury must decide whether to reach a guilty verdict and sentence the nineteen-year-old defendant to death. A lot of evidence proves this teenager is guilty, including the claims of an old man who testified against the boy. However, throughout the play, the twelve jurors thoroughly analyze the evidence of the old man and look at the different aspects and points of view, and eventually, reasonable doubt comes into play, and the boy is proven not guilty.
The quietness and patience juror 8 displayed caused tension amongst the other jurors creating careful and adequate (Flouri & Fitsakis, 2007, p.453) deliberations. Juror 8 's circle of influence (Covey, 2013) directly influenced the other jurors’ circle of concern (Covey, 2013) when forcing them to question their thought process. Juror 8 chose a collaborative negotiation (Budjac Corvette, 2007, p. 63) method when deliberating with the other jurors immediately handing down guilty verdicts for the defendant. Furthermore, juror 8 used his ACES to help the other jurors cross the creek (Budjac Corvette, 2007, p.
One of his very first lines is, “I’ve never seen a guiltiter man in my life,” (12 Angry Men) when expressing his initial opinion of the defendant. It seems like he’s intent on sending this man off to die without even giving the case so much as a second glance, and at first it appears he might very well get his way. Luckily, eight sweeps in to try and reason with three and again save the day. While juror eight’s argument is based mostly on facts, juror three’s argument seems to be built on stereotypes and prejudices. Even after hearing evidence upon evidence about why the defendant is guilty, three stubbornly doesn’t budge. Until finally it’s revealed why. “It’s the kids...they don’t listen. I’ve got a kid. When he was fifteen he hit me in the face. Haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids!” juror three eventually admits. In other words, three is taking his anger about his relationship issues with his son out on the defendant. This is an example of a juror bringing past emotions and prejudices into the courtroom, much like juror two. Three’s frequent bursts of anger and lashing out at other jurors is represented in diagram one by the thick, pointy, dark red line that borders his prickly and sharp figure. Inside the shape, the diagram shows red to represent anger and bitterness. The blue oval represents that three’s anger comes from sadness. This is best shown at the end of the play when three rips up a picture of his son into pieces in anger. Then later he breaks down on the floor, crying out “Not guilty.” Deep down three knew that the defendant was not guilty, but his anger and sadness towards his son drove him to want to see the boy punished, even if it was for a crime he never actually
12 Angry Men is one of the best plays I have read so far, the humor and the sense of mystery captivates readers into reading more of the play. So far, as I have finished reading Act 1 of the play the readers have learned that twelve jurors must deliberate a murder case ultimately deciding the fate of one 18 year boy to be sent to the electric chair. The trial so far has taken six days far too many for some of the impatient jurors. The evidence of guilt seems overwhelming but Juror #8 thinks otherwise he believes that maybe the boy could be innocent and votes not guilty during the first vote. At first, Juror #8 says he just wants to talk for a while about the verdict. He brings up certain details of the case that have been bothering him, but
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