I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.” (13) In the movie, juror eight said basically the same exact statement with the exception of a few words, only instead of saying the boy was sixteen, he said that the boy was
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.
Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Café was written by Fannie Flagg, a well-known American author. This novel takes place in the Deep South and switches back and forth between the 1980s and the early 20th century, when discrimination was rampant. Discrimination has two main definitions. Firstly it is defined as “the ability to recognize the difference between things that are of good quality and those that are not” (Webster). A second definition is “the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people” (Webster).
Juror 4 said this because he didn’t want anyone to assume if he was guilty or not, he wanted them to know for sure. This relates to the theme because Juror 4 dared to say what he thought was right, leading the jurors to listen to each other more. Even though Juror 4 couldn’t completely
Look-this boy’s been kicked around all his life….. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all”(556). By choosing to talk about the trial
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.
Also he doesn’t think it is so clear cut. The boy’s story is discussed again which leads to changing Juror Nine’s mind of calling the boy guilty. In this example is was good that Juror Eight was courageous enough to stand alone against the other eleven Jurors. I am sure that I have stood alone a few times in my life however, I don’t remember many of these times. I do, however, remember how I stood up for a classmate in one of my old schools who was being trash talked.
In 12 Angry Men, the movie begins in a courtroom where the case is being discussed by the judge, who seems fairly uninterested. The jurors are then instructed to enter the jury room to begin their deliberations. They take a vote and all but juror 8 vote guilty. The jurors react violently to the dissenting vote but ultimately decide to go around the table in hope of convincing the 8th juror.
Legal dramas have long been effective in commanding the public's attention and popularity. A classic example of such a legal drama is the play Twelve Angry Men, which follows the deliberations of a jury judging a murder case. Through their discussions and passionate arguments, the audience learns the facts about the case and the defendant from the perspective of the jurors. In the play, the jurors discuss the possibility of a hung jury which occurs when the jury cannot make a unanimous decision and a mistrial is declared. The jurors, however, came to the decision that the defendant is not guilty.
Twelve Angry Men We are wasting our time here, there is facts staring at us in the face. We are letting time go by without noticing that is boy did not kill his father. The facts are right there we need to stop comparing him with everyone else this boy is not everyone else. He is not guilty because one, the lady would not have been able to see without her glasses plus with the el train passing by, second, the knife that was used and was so unique but how did juror 8 find and brought the same knife nearby in that same neighborhood.
Throughout the play 12 Angry Men, jurors use reasonable doubt; previous knowledge or opinion of a topic, to influence the opinions of other jurors. Personal insight used by Juror eight, juror 9, Juror 5, Juror 8, and Juror 2 influence other jurors by changing their opinions and their reasoning behind that vote. For Instance, Juror eight exhibits how the old man 's testimony is not valid. He demonstrates the old man walking from his bedroom, down the hall, and down the steps, just in time to witness the boy stab his father.
The justice system that relies on twelve individuals reaching a life-or-death decision has many complications and dangers. The play Twelve Angry Men, by Reiginald Rose, illustrates the dangers of a justice system that relies on twelve people reaching a life-or-death decision because people are biased, they think of a jury system as an inconvenience, and many people aren’t as intelligent as others. The first reason why Reiginald illustrates dangers is because people can be biased or they can stereotype the defendant. The Jurors in Twelve Angry Men relate to this because a few of them were biased and several of them stereotyped the defendant for being from the slums. The defendant in this play was a 19 year old kid from the slums.
‘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.
Have you ever been in a situation where you and a group of individuals are trying to make a difficult decision? A decision that could alter another person 's life. Well for the jurors in “Twelve Angry Men” ,by Reginald Rose, they had to do exactly that. All twelve members of the jury had to decide whether a young man would be guilty of manslaughter. All of them were forced to stay in the room until they all agreed on a decision.
He’s slipping through our fingers!” Juror 8 told Juror 3 that he wants the boy to die because of his own desire rather than the actual
