My favorite character from the movie was Juror 8 because he fought for what he thought was right. Comparing him with the others he was brave enough to stand out to everyone thinking the kid was not guilty. Others where to scared to speak up and just went along to what everyone else said. Juror 8 saw things that others didn’t notice. He went in deeper in the case and that’s what makes him different. He actually cared that it was the life of a kid not like the others that thought it was just easy to say he was guilty and kill him. All the jurors thought straight from the beginning that all the testimonies made from the woman and the old man where true. The small details was what made the other jurors doubt that the kid was guilty. For example
the point where there was a large amount of sound outside yet the man could still hear the kid say he was going to kill his father. Also how the man said it did not take him more than 15 seconds to walk from his bedroom to the door and he got to see the boy running out. Juror 8 sketched and acted that scene out and proved everyone that it did not take 15 second for the old man to walk from his room to the stairs. Especially the way the saw the old man walk in the courtroom. He had one bad foot that made him walk slower. At the end one by one Juror convinced everyone that the kid might have not been guilty and it was hard for some of the jurors but they ended helping him out by looking the same way as juror 8. Juror 8 had the chance to back his answer up and finish that quick but he thought of the kid and did what he thought was right. It only takes one person to make a difference.
Lieutenant Commander Oram and Captain John Adam are lethal weapons. These characters are leaders, kings of their castles. With emotions like storms that cloud their thoughts, makes hard decisions similar to escaping from quicksand. Below us, the submarine of Michael Bruce’s “Gentlemen, Your Verdict” lies helpless at the bottom of the ocean, Commander Oram must decide whether fifteen innocent men should die for five to live or if all twenty men will die from oxygen deprivation. Trusted by his crew with anything and everything, he is the Albus Dumbledore of his submarine: Colin McDougal’s The Firing Squad focuses on protagonist Captain John Adam, who is asked to be the executioner of a prisoner he feels innocent and with whose execution he disagrees. The characters in question are both placed in different situations, yet can be compared and contrasted through their moral dilemmas, tough decisions and their military
From the beginning of the film, juror number eight displayed his interest in the case, not his personal engagements. His opening part by the window foreshadowed his deep concern for the defendant, an eighteen year-old Hispanic gentleman accused of stabbing his father in a fit of rage. While most of the jurors were ready to leave so as not to further interrupt their schedules, Henry Fonda was willing to give as much time as it would take to analyze this seemingly simple decision.
Dee Goong An, more popularly known as Judge Dee, was a well known magistrate of the Tang Dynasty (618-907 AD). His popularity comes from his just perspective, which makes him a great magistrate. He addresses new cases with open ears and is determined to be fair at all times. He treats all people equally and relies only on hard proof to solve cases. With some help, he uncovers guilty criminals, using several techniques to find the truth. Going undercover and using torture to get people to confess, Judge Dee uses his persist approaches to make things right. He risks his job for the truth, and relies on his gut and experience to capture felons. Judge Dee's experience and righteous judgment to find the true criminals by proving them guilty, makes him an ideal magistrate of the time.
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...
Is the jury system a good idea? Many will say yes, and a few like myself will say no. At first I believed, yes a jury system is a good idea, it’s lasted us this long so why should there be any changes to it. Then I read this DBQ and it changed my mind. So first of all, most jurors are non-reliable, a lot of them can be biased and not even care or pay attention to the case they are assigned to, and lastly we have living proof on why we should get rid of a jury, and that is the Casey Anthony case.
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.
He believes that a kid from a place like that isn’t any good. The next character is Edward James Olmos (#11) for the first half of the movie he was very quiet and walked around, but once he changed his vote to not guilty he became very kind and helpful. Something he said when he was standing up for the kid was, “ to say one is capable of committing murder
Juror #1 originally thought that the boy was guilty. He was convinced that the evidence was concrete enough to convict the boy. He continued to think this until the jury voted the first time and saw that one of the jurors thought that the boy was innocent. Then throughout the movie, all of the jurors were slowly convinced that the boy was no guilty.
This movie goes to show how such crucial facts and minuet evidence if not processed fully and clearly can change the outcome in such a big way. In this jury you have 12 men from all different walks of life, 12 different times, and 12 different personalities. Who have an obligation to come to one conclusion and that's whether or not the young man on trial is guilty of murdering his father or is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Under much frustration and lack of patience these 12 men began to get unruly and unfocused. Throughout this distraction key terms get misused, facts get turned around and more importantly emotions start to cross making it hard for these men to produce a verdict.
When the story ended I was left with several questions regarding Mr. Johnson’s personality, however, that is the aspect that makes him my favorite character. Mr. Johnson’s fluid personality between kind and cruel made him mysterious and interesting while his actions throughout the story made his character thought-provoking. Mr. Johnson’s overall personality and effect on the story make him my favorite character out of the ten
In “ A Jury of Her Peers”, when the county sheriff and attorney go to the Wright house to investigate a murder. They search for clues to incriminate Mrs. Wright but find nothing. They discover Mr. Wright strangled in his bedroom and saw Mrs. Wright completely unaffected. Although Mrs. Wright claims to have been asleep while the murder occurred, the women conclude she choked her husband, Mr. Wright, as evidenced by the broken bird cage, the strangled canary, and the errant quilt patch.
Mrs. Martha Hale is an apologetic, dutiful, and rational character who serves as a defense to justify Mrs. Wright’s murderous crime. Mrs. Hale as featured in “A Jury of Her Peers” Written by Susan Glaspell has the storyline of a mother who has intense apologetic regret over allowing her life to push things aside, of being a dutiful homemaker, and of unseen rational processing to the truth of the crime.
... 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.
I believe that both characters showed interesting standpoints for the audience to recognize and maybe even understand. Juror 3 and 8 were definitely the two most conflicting characters; they created a lot of tension within the play. I find that the play “Twelve Angry men” really brought truth to the saying “justice is blind”; prejudice simply cannot interfere with the truth, neither can it restrict reasonable doubt.
My favorite character was Madea because she was ruthless in the play, and she gets away with in the end. Madea is some what justified by her anger and to seek revenge, but not enough to kill her own children.