ipl-logo

12 Angry Men Juror 8

749 Words3 Pages

It’s the hottest day of the year in New York City, and 12 men, who were put on a jury, are locked into a room to discuss the case of an accused 18 year old murderer. In the opening scene, the judge states that is it a first degree murder and if found guilty the teenager will receive the death penalty. The 18 year old is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade. The 12 jurors must decide if there is enough evidence to convict the teen of murder. When the initial vote is taken is it 11-1. The one vote for not guilty is juror eight, the voice of reason. Juror eight shows true justice by considering someone’s innocent until proved guilty. Within the first ten minutes of the men being in the jury room, where the fan …show more content…

As the other jurors are yelling at him for saying that the boy could even be innocent and for showing them the evidence, Davis never lost his cool. He stood still and let them finish talking before he responded. After showing that it would take longer than 15 seconds for the neighbor to get to the door, juror 3, Angry, started to yell at him for saying that the boy had to do it. Davis responded without even raising their voice. Juror 9 didn’t feel way at one point and looked as if he was about to pass out, Davis helped him sit back down and even offered to get him water. Finally, at the end of the movie when all 12 jurors agreed that the teen was not guilty, Angry had a hard time coming to terms with everything. So, Davis helped him get up from his chair, got his coat for him and helped him put it on, then waited for him to start walking and walked behind him. While the movie is slow moving in the beginning, all the jurors add something to make you want to watch more and see what Davis will say to convince the others that the teen is not guilty. Davis is the perfect juror by demonstrating true justice by considering the 18 year old innocent until proven

Show More
Related
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
186 Words | 1 Pages

As the play went on, Juror Eight started proving how the boy was innocent. In the end Juror Eight changed all the other juror’s minds, except for Juror Three’s. Juror Three ended up changing his vote, not because they changed his mind but because he gave into peer pressure. He still had his prejudice influenced decision, he only gave in because he didn't want it to be a hung jury. Another example, from the same play, is Juror Eight.

Read More
997 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More
502 Words | 3 Pages

Juror Eight was the only man from the beginning of the play who stuck by his belief that the kid was innocent. He stood alone in front of the other jurors and defended himself from the other jurors, such as Juror Three and Juror Ten. Jurors Three and Ten were adamant that the kid was guilty and refused to listen to Juror Eight’s “nonsense”. Juror Eight’s evidence and speeches persuaded all the other jurors to change their vote from not guilty, except for Juror Three. The only reason Juror Three had it out for the kid was because he himself had some issues with kids respecting their parents, and specifically their fathers.

Read More
1964 Words | 8 Pages

What is worth our attention in this movie is how in the beginning they are trying to convince each other to vote guilty. 11 juror voted guilty and only one voted not guilty. Their judgments were based upon either their past personal experience which created their thoughts and behavior or upon facts. Juror 8 represents the conscience. He stood up for his inner feelings that the accused young boy is innocent.

Read More
747 Words | 3 Pages

He fills in an X and hands the pencil to NO. 12.” (12 Angry Men). He thinks the only pieces of evidence are the witnesses because they said they saw the killing even though there was flaws within their testimony. After further investigation, he agrees the boy is not guilty. Then, juror number three persuades number twelve

Read More
1247 Words | 5 Pages

While all of the other men have changed their vote to a not guilty verdict, the third jurors remains with his original belief. Even in the very end of the play, he acts hostile against the others trying to change his mind, in saying “Do you think I’m an idiot or something?” (Rose 72). One juror that seems almost impervious to argumentative fallacies and peer pressure is Juror 8. Juror almost displays the ideal juror, and the rest tend to mimic the flaws of the system.

Read More
755 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More
644 Words | 3 Pages

He was able to retain confidence and doubt uniformly, because through his analytical thought processing, he was able to pull unreliable facts from the witnesses stories that prove the witnesses may not have even seen the boy commit the murder. Mr. Davis was meticulous while analyzing the entirety of the case, ranging from the eyesight of the witness to the angle of the knife. He used precision and facts in order to persuade the rest of the jurors that not all evidence is

Read More
372 Words | 2 Pages

There were twelve Jurors, but one of them, Juror eight changed everybody’s opinion about the murder. There were many arguments presented by Juror eight that convinced the other Jurors that proved that the teenager who was accused of murdering his father was not guilty. Juror number eight verified that the old man who swore he had saw the murder in only 15 seconds did not. The Jurors recreated the old man seeing the murder and timed it. 39 seconds.

Read More
547 Words | 3 Pages

Henry Fonda known as Juror 8 is the sole rebellious voice who refuses to agree with a unanimous guilty decision. However, uncertain weather the boy is guilty or not, his persistence on re-examining the details of the case slowly starts to change the rest of the juror’s minds. He does this by using various techniques of negotiating, persuasion and power to influence his companions. In the beginning Henry is the only the one to vote not guilty amongst the twelve men, he does because he feels that the group should at least discuss the heavy decision at hand, a mans life.

Read More
1458 Words | 6 Pages

This movie is the best example of minority influence where in the earlier stage only one juror no. 8 says defendant is not guilty but in the end of the movie we see that he is able to influence all the jurors in a very logical manner which I am going to point out later so that all the jurors lastly says the defendant is not guilty. Minority influence is more likely to occur if the point of view of the minority is consistent, flexible, and appealing to the majority. The juror no. 8 doesn’t know defendant is guilty or not guilty but he has only doubt in his mind which he trying to clear during the entire film and with which he also able to clear the views of other

Read More
824 Words | 4 Pages

The jury is then dismissed to a room in which all but one juror votes guilty in favor of the death sentence. Henry Fonda, the sole juror voting not guilty, uses a mixture of persuasive appeals to slowly convince the other jurors, yet none more effectively than logos. The shift in momentum towards a not guilty verdict occurs when Fonda begins to discredit the old man’s testimony. The logical approach that Fonda takes, mapping out the old man’s room, counting the seconds, and reenacting the scene, not only begins to convince the other jurors but also the viewers of the film, which is equally, if not more important. The fact that the director choses not to show what really happened with the boys father, means that the audience also had to be convinced of the boys innocence, if not convinced, may not have seen this level of success.

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 Juror 8

Related Topics

Open Document