Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
12 angry men literary analysis
Analysis of juror 1 in 12 angry men
12 angry men literary analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
12 angry men literary analysis
Analysis of juror 1 in 12 angry men
12 angry men literary analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Juror #2 finds it “interesting that he’d find a knife exactly like the one the boy bought”(24). Afterwards, the 8th Juror suggests that the old man, one of the witnesses, lied because of the point Juror #3 tried to make. Juror #3 says, that the old man “[ran ] to his door and [saw ] the kid tearing down the stairs fifteen seconds after the killing”(42). Juror #8 then suggests that the old man could not have done that because of his stroke.
12 Angry Men, a short story based on bias and making rational decisions. When put in a hot airy room, tensions rise up for these men. In the play, the main protagonist is Juror No.8, he is also the hero. With that being Juror No. 8 could be a hero in many different ways. During the play he states “I don’t want to change your mind.
Based on the evidence gathered from the case everyone agrees the boy is innocent except one man, juror three. He eventually breaks down and consequently tells the truth. The viewers can tell that this movie/play is full of emotions. Each of these emotions can be described as something more than what comes to the eye.
Juror 8 is the most significant persuader is the entire jury. He is the only person who believes the boy is not guilty. He makes several points that justify his reasoning. The first major point he makes is the switchblade knife. During the trial the prosecution assumed that that knife was one of a kind and no other person could have a knife like that.
Though juror 3 has been adamant on the guilt of the young boy it is safe to say that this case meant more to him because the relationship with his son is similar to the relationship between the boy and the father. Since his personal vendetta causes him to forcefully accuse the boy of murder it leaves the jury 11-1 in favor of not guilty. Since carefully reviewing the movie it becomes very prevalent that there has not been enough substantial evidence to convict the boy of murder. Furthermore, with the usage of group think all of the men, accept juror 3 are able to put their pride aside and vote what they truly believe the verdict should be, which is not guilty. Though, one of the more pragmatic points in the film happens after juror 3 becomes infuriated after realizing that all of the men are voting not guilty.
In Twelve Angry Men by Sherman Sergel and Reginald Rose, Juror Ten believes the boy is innocent throughout most of the play because of his perspective and opinion of people from the boys same ethnicity. In Act 1 the Jurors start to sit down and talk about how harsh the crime was when Juror Ten says, ‘“A kid kills his father. Bing! Just like that.
The “Hero” of Twelve Angry Men All quotes and anything else taken from the story for this essay is from the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose. In the story of The Twelve Angry Men juror Eight can be known as the hero for the nine-teen year old boy. Just because he may have been the said hero of the boy, does not mean that the outcome was the right one. Yes, he was able to save a life by convincing the other members of the jury to not send this boy to be executed, but did he lead the the other members of the jury to the right decision.
12 Angry Men is a film about 12 jurors arguing the conviction of a young man, charged with first degree murder. The conflict the men face causes them to rethink their opinions and values until everyone comes to an agreement that the boy is innocent. When the jurors meet in the jury room, they sit around the table and are numbered 1-12. Most of the jurors voted ‘Guilty’, but 8 jurors voted ‘Not Guilty’. When #8 was asked why he voted that way, he told them that a young man shouldn’t be sent off to die that quickly without them analyzing it.
The play 12 Angry Men is about a jury of twelve men that are given the task of deciding the fate, guilty or not guilty, of a young boy accused of murdering his father. The theme of standing up against the majority is very prevalent in this story because of the decisions some of the jurors make throughout the play. Juror 8 makes the decision to vote not guilty, he is the one and only juror in this play that decides to vote not guilty for the boy in the beginning. The other eleven jurors decide to vote guilty because of the evidence that they have been presented with. The act of Juror 8 standing against the majority of the other jurors about the case, voting not guilty, allows the jurors to thoroughly dissect the case, understanding it fully and thoughtfully before making their decision of guilty or not guilty.
Juror 8 is a natural leader, and one by one he persuades the other jurors to accept his arguments through persistence, supposing the evidence and suggesting that there are possible explanations to the witness stories and evidence given for the murder case. Rose uses Juror 8 to exemplify that there are many who take the aspects of justice seriously and can decide on fair verdicts. He says that he cannot “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”, demonstrating the ethical qualities that some of humanity possesses. He is also able to assert the views of intolerance and also comprehends that “prejudice obscures the truth”.
Davis, Juror Eight, is the main character, protagonist, and was responsible for the boy's life in this film. He is an architect who was the first to vote "not guilty". Voting that way takes a lot of courage, because all the men just want to get out of there and not
12 Angry Men is a movie about twelve jurors who discussing about a murder case of a teenage boy. The play is set in New York City Court of Law jury room in 1957. The decision to sentence the boy to death penalty lies upon these twelve gentlemen. Although, eleven of them found him guilty based on some ambiguous evidence, one man voted not guilty and started a promotion amongst them. This man is the one we should call the hero of the day since he pointed out all the missing points of the case leads to the innocent of the teenage boy.
One piece of evidence that proves the boy’s innocence is the uncommon kind of knife. The testimony said that it was one of a kind knife, while juror number eight brought the exact same one in a local pawn shop proving that the knife wasn’t that rare. In addition to the not uncommon knife, we also have
Juror Ten announces his intentions very early in the play. He speaks loudly and forcefully from the beginning, clearly showing his racism and prejudice towards the boy. Juror 10 quickly votes guilty and asserts that the defendant cannot be believed because “they’re born liars”. Additionally, he claims that the “kids who crawl outa those places are real trash.”
The boy should deserve a careful discussion from jurors before face the result of the trial and he emphases that there were only two people who saw the whole process of the murder stabbing the boy’s dad Juror 8 questioned the weapon which claim to kill father, which is a normal switchblade that even juror 8 owns one himself Juror 8 told other jurors to revote, and if this time 11 jurors still think that the boy is guilty, then he will go with them and say that the boy is guilty too One person voted “Not Guilty” at the second