ipl-logo

12 Angry Men Interview Analysis

1139 Words5 Pages

12 Angry Men Interview
Interview script: Juror No. 8
[The interviewer stands and greets Juror No. 8. He takes off his coat and sits down.]
Interviewer: [smiling gently] Hello No. 8, how are you? Thank you very much for taking your time off to have this interview.
No. 8: No worries… It really has been one of my goals to spend the time to clearly explain to the public what happened in that jury room. [smiles mildly]
Interviewer: Ok let’s get started. So can you tell me what really happened in that room?
No. 8: [looking at the window] Well we… oh yeah, we started off with an initial vote and everyone voted guilty except for me. Everyone wanted to vote guilty even without taking their time to consider and think of other outcomes. We can say that …show more content…

8: I think that… as a juror… we have to really think, we have to think about all the evidence, about all the outcomes. Well if I voted guilty at the initial vote, we would’ve let the boy die but as a juror being given jury duty… one of the highest duties of citizenship… is a big duty and being trusted and chosen to have a person’s life in your hands is just way too much pressure to handle and is one of the hardest things to do in your own lifetime and a one of a lifetime experience that you will just never forget. I would say that a case like this takes so much time and needs to have a proper moral to end up with the right …show more content…

No. 8: Yes, I do… [sighing and shaking head slowly] It was hard and some of the jurors were just hard headed, we were starting to think that we were a hung jury but in the end, we came to a unanimous conclusion that the boy is not guilty.
Interviewer: One last thing, do you have any problems or opinions with today’s jury system?
No. 8: I think that the jury system we have today has its own advantages and disadvantages. For example, a jury that consists of jurors who are biased could be manipulated by ‘outsiders’ through bribery or some jurors, as we have discussed before, might have some personal prejudices/beliefs that may affect their decision making. But there are some advantages as well because the decision that is made by the jury is thought out very carefully by a group of people.
Interviewer: [gathers all his papers] Thank you very much No. 8! You did your part in the community and you did it well. I hope that it is truly an opportunity that will change you for a better person and one that you will never forget.
No. 8: [smiling] You are most welcome! I hope that we really opened your mind up and I hope that we really cleared out what happened in that

Show More
Related
823 Words | 4 Pages

“NO. 7: So what'd you vote not guilty for? NO. 8: There were eleven votes for guilty. It's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” (Lumet 5) Juror #8 is the only one that even tried to find more about the crime and the person, he is the only one that saw him as a kid and made everyone believe him then too. ”

Read More
726 Words | 3 Pages

When asked why he voted not guilty, juror eight stated “Look, this boy has been kicked around all his life. You know---living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. He spent a year in and a half in an orphanage while his father served a jail term for forgery. That’s not a very good head start. He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years.

Read More
1964 Words | 8 Pages

What if juror 8 did not have the courage to freely state his opinion? The innocent boy would be dead for doing absolutely nothing.

Read More
687 Words | 3 Pages

“You want to see this boy die because you personally want it-not because of the facts.” That made the angry juror #3 upset, he tried attacking Mr. Davis, yelling to him he was going to kill him. Mr. Davis said to him, looking directly in his eyes “you really don’t want to kill me, do you?” Asking that question then showed the other jurors in the room, how people can say things out of stress. Such as how the witness claim to see the incident happening in the middle of the night, with a train passing by, and without her glasses

Read More
744 Words | 3 Pages

The Power of Three Perspectives One can be easily mislead or persuade in a direction they do not agree with. However this is not the case with Juror 8 (Mr. Davis) in the film 12 Angry Men. In this film, twelve jurors try to identify whether or not the convicted eighteen year-old boy is guilty of murdering his father with a switchblade knife. If the puerto-rican boy is found guilty, he will be sent to the electric chair and sentenced to death.

Read More
755 Words | 4 Pages

Daja McLaurin Benton TA: Yiwen Dai Communications: 250 1 April, 2016 12 Angry Men Assessment After viewing the movie 12 Angry Men the group was able to implement the ideas of group think immediately during the start of the movie. Since the men briefly established a relationship from the time of witnessing the trial to start of deliberation n the empty room and reaching a unanimous decision, they found that all of the men initially achieved a verdict of guilty accept for juror 8. After this surprising decision the men began to show their true colors and distinguish how one may believe something and another juror may believe another. The group takes time in pleading individual opinions while deciding on the guilt or innocence of a young boy

Read More
644 Words | 3 Pages

Guilty or not guilty, all citizens deserve a thorough trial to defend their rights. Formulating coherent stories from events and circumstances almost cost a young boy his life. In Twelve Angry Men, 1957, a single juror did his duty to save the life of an 18 year old boy by allowing his mind to rationalize the cohesive information presented by the court and its witnesses. The juror’s name was Mr. Davis, he was initially the only one of 12 jurors to vote not guilty in reason that the young boy, sentenced with first degree murder, may be innocent. I am arguing that system 1 negatively affects the jurors opinion on the case and makes it difficult for Mr. Davis to convince the other jurors of reasonable doubt.

Read More
1186 Words | 5 Pages

8th juror appeals to their sense of pathos and pity by saying “this boy’s been kicked around all his life… He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.” While this has nothing to do with the case, he hopes to appeal to their humanity in order to get them to give him a chance in these deliberations.

Read More
360 Words | 2 Pages

but he wasn’t too excited to go to jury duty. When he showed up to the court, he did have to answer questions from an attorney. The first question they asked him was “Can you listen to a testimony and will you be an impartial juror?”. He said yes. Then they asked him the final question and it was “Are you prejudice?”.

Read More
548 Words | 3 Pages

(3.) Juries work well because of the fact that juries are one of the most democratic aspects of the constitution; they are democracy in action every day of the week, not just once every four or five years. There is no other part of the constitution that is so open to the public, where ordinary people participate in decisions of such immediate importance and wield real power. There are jurors settling the fates of their fellow citizens in crown courts up and down the country every day of the week, determining by their verdicts whether or not defendants are guilty of the most serious crimes of violence and dishonesty such as murder, rape, robbery

Read More
814 Words | 4 Pages

‘Twelve Angry Men’ written by Reginald Rose, is based on the story of a jury who have to come together to determine the fate of a young boy accused to have murdered his own father. Initially, eleven of the jurors vote not guilty with one of the juror being uncertain of the evidence put before them. As the men argue over the different pieces of evidence, the insanity begins to make sense and the decision becomes clearer as they vote several other times. Rose creates drama and tension in the jury room, clearly exploring through the many issues of prejudice, integrity and compassion, in gaining true justice towards the accused victim. These aspects have been revealed through three character who are Juror 10, Juror 8 and Juror 3.

Read More
445 Words | 2 Pages

As I walk into the room filled with, “A jury of my peers”, I begin to question how fair or how biased we will all be. I am always one to question the system, but I know that I cannot do anything about the system itself, so I have to just go along with it, and follow the crowd. I guess my need to question everything is what I bring to the table of the jury room, although I may not have the courage to voice my opinions. I am sad to say that being on a jury is not a job that suits me well. I am not in any way patient, and I genuinely hate confrontation.

Read More
271 Words | 2 Pages

Reginald Rose, the author of Twelve Angry Men, uses characters and their actions to show how the Judicial branch of the government isn’t always fair. The Judicial branch itself may be set up to be fair, but the people in charge of a case may not always put effort into it. The fifth amendment states that a person is innocent until proven guilty, they also do not have to say anything in court, this is set up so the law would have to find him/her guilty. With all this taken in, the jurors decide if the defendant is guilty or not, however if some of the jurors were rushing or biased the “fair” system wouldn’t matter. In the script; eleven of the twelve jurors voted guilty without giving much thought.

Read More
1404 Words | 6 Pages

The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar

Read More
858 Words | 4 Pages

In a New York City, an 18-year-old male from a slum is on a trial claiming that he is responsible for his father death by stabbing him After both sides has finished their closing argument in the trial, the judge asks the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty or not The judge informs the jury decided the boy is guilty, he will face a death sentence as a result of this trial The jurors went into the private room to discuss about this case. At the first vote, all jurors vote guilty apart from Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), he was the only one who voted “Note Guilty” Juror 8 told other jurors that they should discuss about this case before they put a boy into a death sentence

Read More

More about 12 Angry Men Interview Analysis

Related Topics

Open Document