Juror 8’s Evolution in Twelve Angry Men and Its Reflection on the Jury System By Jadore John. One of the well-known characters from Reginald Rose's play Twelve Angry Men, Juror 8, warns against the advantages and disadvantages of the jury system. Juror 8's actions, as the only vote for "not guilty," therefore allow one to examine the jury system's advantages and disadvantages when it comes to maintaining justice. These advantages are further emphasized when one takes into consideration personal biases and beliefs of innocence. To get better knowledge of the jury system, one could connect Juror 8's character development to non-fiction articles like "Presumption of Innocence" and "What is Confirmation Bias?" Juror 8 has matured as a person, and is now prepared to carefully consider the evidence and start an open discussion. For instance, he raises doubt on the veracity of the eyewitness testimony and demonstrates that the murder weapon was not as uncommon as previously thought. His thorough examination of the case illustrates another significant benefit of the jury system: analysis. In order to prevent the jury from reaching a hurried verdict and to force each member to rethink their choices, Juror 8 presents the evidence. The article "What is Confirmation Bias?" …show more content…
In contrast to the unbiased evidence offered in the play, he has to defend against other jurors influenced by their personal biases. Juror 3's problems with his kid are one example. They corrupt his neutrality and reinforce his judgment of the defendant. This particular case clearly demonstrates what many have come to consider to be one of the biggest problems in the field: confirmation bias, or the tendency for people to ignore evidence that opposes their ideas in favor of information that confirms them. Because, as was mentioned in "What is Confirmation Bias?" These biases might influence
each other towards their opinion. Juror Eight is the most effective because he is able to manipulate the other jurors with his calm, respectful, open-mindedness, and rational ways. Juror Eight is calm and respectful which helps him to manipulate the other jurors. When a person is calm they tend to know how to control what they say and do in tense and serious situations. Juror Three rages with anger and threatens Juror Eight that he is going to kill him but all Juror Eight did in response was say, “You
justice being served. In the beginning, 11 jurors were ready to give a guilty verdict before the details of the case were explored. However, the two men with the most complex relationship are Juror 3 and Juror 8. Juror 3 and Juror 8 are the two characters in 12 Angry Men that drive the plot along, although their persistent conflicting views stemming from differences in backgrounds, behaviors and attitudes cause them to constantly clash. Juror 3 and Juror 8 come from completely different background
Men, Juror number 8 (Doug) was a person who lived a great life. He was a very compassionate, and peaceful man who was dedicated to finding the truth about the case about the child who was blamed for the murder of his father. In this case, out of the 12 jurors who constantly grappled with this case, Doug was probably the most compassionate and the nicest to all the people to find the truth. Doug was a man who was married, had two kids, and worked as an architect before he was called for juror duty
the deposition, the jurors casted votes and because the suspect had a criminal record and many incidental proofs accumulated against him, eleven of the jurors voted “guilty.” Only one person of the twelve-man jury, juror eight who was the protagonist, voted “not guilty.” As the discussion begun, the jurors learned about personalities and background of other participants of the jury. And gently, juror eight directed them toward a conclusion of “Not Guilty” with an exception of juror three, the antagonist
Many just take the evidence at face value. Some of the jurors have their own views. The foreman believes the boy is guilty based on the evidence. Number 2 just thinks he is guilty and when asked why in the beginning he doesn't know besides just thinking that he was guilty. Juror number 3 is one hundred percent convinced that the boy is guilty because he hates children because of his son running away and not talking to him. Juror number
Men,” is the hero? While some may think deeper to show that other jurors are the hero, but the real hero is, in fact, Juror eight. Not only was eight the voice of reason in the group, he is the one that got all the other jurors to get past their prejudice and really look at the facts of the case. Juror eight was the one from the start that stood up for his beliefs even in a room where all eleven other men were against you. So, Juror eight is the hero of this story because he got the others to really
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. 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
society. That occurs during the film 12 Angry Men, when the jurors engage in a great civil war against one another. In the beginning, all seem to be on the same agenda; all except one. When the jury deliberations begin and the first vote is cast, 11 to 1 guilty is the outcome. Juror number eight, played by Henry Fonda, believes that there is reasonable doubt in the case and that further discussion is inevitable. Most of the jurors, especially numbers three, four and ten, contradict his beliefs
the judge addressing to the jurors that they must keep their oath and make the best decision for the victim with all of the knowledge that they have received from listening to the case. The jurors are then directed into a small room. Tables have been pushed together in the middle to make one big meeting-like table, surrounding with enough chairs to seat the twelve male jurors. After all twelve jurors are settled into the room, the bailiff/officer locks the door. The jurors shuffle throughout the room
is against the boy and a guilty verdict would send him to die in the electric chair. The judge informs the jurors that they are faced with a grave decision and that the court would not entertain any acts of mercy for the boy if found guilty. Even before the deliberation talks begin it is apparent most of the men are certain the boy is guilty. However, when the initial poll is taken Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) registers a shocking not guilty vote. Immediately the room is in uproar. The rest of the jury
but one juror is convinced that he his guilty of killing his father. Luckily for the young man in the case, one juror has reasonable doubts that he is not guilty. All eleven other jurors did not take a hard look at the case or question anything. The one juror who disagrees simply does not want to send the boy off to his death without talking about anything, he valued human life. “Juror #8 is dramatic, just, kind, and smart. But none of these things would get him anywhere with the other jurors if he
On Friday, April 18, I attended the Henderson State University production of Twelve Angry Men. Reginald Rose wrote the playwright of Twelve Angry Men and Sherman L. Sergel had it adapted. The performance took place in the Arkansas Hall Studio Theatre on Henderson State campus. Fortunately, I had the opportunity of watching the Good Friday performance of this play and it did everything but disappoint. I didn’t know much about this playwright before entering the theater other than it took place in
groups and teams. The film tells the story of twelve jurors who must come to a conviction on a murder case. Before the jurors leave to come to a verdict, the judge reminds them that their decision must be unanimous or a hung jury will be the result. The judge also tells them that if anyone has any “reasonable doubt,” he should vote “not guilty.” When they congregate, the jury votes almost immediately. Every juror votes “guilty” except for Juror 8, Henry Fonda. The film shows
various group learning and social psychology theories. Released in 1957, the movie is about a team of 12 jurors who are totally strangers to each other, and are called upon by the judge to reach a consensus on whether to pronounce guilty or not, an 18 year old person accused of murdering his own father. A guilty verdict would lead to a death sentence and hence the onus was on the team of jurors to take a responsible call after examining all the evidences. BRIEF SUMMARY: In the trial of an 18 year
to find her father in order to keep the land her family lived on. The next hero was Chris McCandles from Into the Wild who was sick of living within the boundaries of normal life and wanted to go somewhere where he could truly live. Then, we had Juror #8 from 12 Angry Men who is put up to the task of persuading a jury to save a boy’s life. Lastly, we have Abdulrahman Zeitoun from Zeitoun who has to overcome the challenges of his ethnic background to be free. When you think of a hero you probably