ipl-logo

12 Angry Men Rhetorical Analysis

719 Words3 Pages

Emily Moritz
Miss Champion
Kirkwood Comp 2
May 4th, 2023
Grounded in Reason; Credible in Experience
Persuasion is merely reasonable manipulation, with its foundations built on the stances of pathos, logos, or ethos. By the nature of resolving disagreements, persuasion has become a necessary part of explaining one’s views or convincing another of those views. However, this does not come without convolutions, uncertainty, or retaliation. This is demonstrated well in the 1957 play, 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose. The play, which revolves around 12 jurors as they deliberate upon a murder trial, is rife with various expressions of persuasion and conviction. Within the third act of the play, there are two scenes that display compelling expressions …show more content…

The results reveal that the jury is now split six to six, with Juror Eleven, Juror Two, and Juror Six having changed their votes to not guilty. When asked to elaborate, Juror Six states the following, “‘It would seem that the old man did not see the boy run downstairs … And if the boy did scream that he was going to kill, then we have the authority of this man…to prove that it might not really mean he's going to kill.’” (Rose, 46). The man in question is Juror Three, who inadvertently proved at the end of act two that people don’t always mean what they yell in anger. Juror Two also had this to say, “‘He…seems so sure. And he has made a number of good points. While he…only gets mad and insults everybody.’” (Rose, 48). The first individual referred to is Juror Eight, while the latter is Juror Three. Both of these quotes reveal that a combination of ethos and logos is being employed to convince the jury. The logical walkthrough of the events of the murder allowed Juror Eight to calmly explain his points, in turn making himself appear far more credible than the hot-headed Juror Three. This persuasive tactic is also mirrored later in the act, although by a different jury …show more content…

At this point, several jurors are unsure what to think, as another reenactment of events has reaffirmed some belief in the guilt of the defendant. This additional pressure is also what helps the following rebuttal be impactful. Juror Five states the following, “‘Switch knives came with the neighborhood where I lived… Anyone who's ever used a switch knife would never have stabbed downward…You use it underhanded.’” (Rose, 56). He makes it clear that, unlike the other jurors, he has personally witnessed how real knife fights are conducted. It validates his point that the defendant, who was proficient in switch knives, wouldn't have stabbed downwards. This is a logical argument, as the logistics of how a knife fighter would stab is a valid hole in the guilty argument. Combined with more debate on the intelligence of the defendant, the position of reasonable doubt is strengthened. Thus the vote is swung in favor of acquittal, with nine to three

Show More
Related
899 Words | 4 Pages

When juror number three finally speaks, “not guilty!”(Rose 1957) After realizing his prejudice, all along, it brings attention to the reader, turning their heads, and feeling relief as though the defendant is not guilty. Since juror number ten and juror number three were the most headstrong and argumentative, the moments of their final realization were very important. When the murder weapon is brought into the room, journal number eight contradicts the court's evidence and pulls out a replica of the knife. The evidence is automatically unreasonable.

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
287 Words | 2 Pages

In the play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose, Juror Eight proves himself to be a hero because he is courageous and fights for justice. Juror Eight demonstrates his heroic qualities by displaying bravery in defying the other jurors. After estimating the time it took for the old man to walk from his bedroom to the front door, Juror Three denies Juror Eight’s theory and Juror Eight questions Juror Three’s intentions when he asks, “Slip through our fingers? Are you his executioner?” (Rose 47).

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
526 Words | 3 Pages

He argues that there is reasonable doubt in the case and that the accused might not be guilty. Juror #8's credibility is further strengthened when he produces a similar knife that the accused used to kill the victim and shows that the knife is not as unique as the prosecution claimed it to

Read More
1440 Words | 6 Pages

When discussing whether the crippled old man could walk from the house to the door in 15 seconds, Juror 3 initially insisted that the old man's testimony must be accurate, but then said in the heat of the moment that the old man's words were not necessarily accurate. At this point, everyone realized that there were doubts about the crippled old man's words, as well as the inconsistencies in the views expressed by Juror 3, who was a bit too radical. After Juror 8 demonstrated the scene of the limping old man walking from the bedroom to the front door, he had a confrontation with Juror 3. Juror 3's impulsive "I'm going to kill you" statement, which had been their evidence of the defendant's guilt, was again overturned when the other jurors fell silent and looked at Juror 3. It was also here that the jurors began to suggest that people should not bring personal feelings to bear on the guilt or innocence of the

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
1419 Words | 6 Pages

I watched the original 1957 version of 12 Angry Men, the premise of which surrounds a jury deciding the fate of an 18 year old charged with the murder of his father. We join the story after trial has concluded and the twelve jurors are beginning deliberation. For the purpose of this paper I have chosen to focus on juror number three played by Lee J. Cobb. From the very beginning of the film the audience is given a small glimpse of juror number three with the use of foreshadowing. After the judge dismisses the jury, number three is the first to stand and look at the accused before leaving the courtroom.

Read More
731 Words | 3 Pages

Miah Archambault 12 lessons Prejudice gets in the way of the truth affecting the amount of time the jury spent to vote. Many of the jurors do not bother listening to the truth or facts of the case, as they’re entitled to their opinion. This is evident in the way jurors #3 and #10 come to their decision the defendant is guilty. Juror #10 brings the most prejudice into the room, as his decision was established the moment he saw the young boy from the slum. Once juror #10 laid eyes on the boy, he sees no reason to waste time on debating the defendant's fate.

Read More
1186 Words | 5 Pages

Twelve Angry Men is in many ways a love letter to the American legal justice system. We find here eleven men, swayed to conclusions by prejudices, past experience, and short-sightedness, challenged by one man who holds himself and his peers to a higher standard of justice, demanding that this marginalized member of society be given his due process. We see the jurors struggle between the two, seemingly conflicting, purposes of a jury, to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. It proves, however, that the logic of the American trial-by-jury system does work.

Read More
412 Words | 2 Pages

The final "score" is 11-1 guilty, bravely led by Juror number Eight, who apparently concluded the boy did not murder his own father. Juror number Eight, the only exception, begs the question, "Why did he choose the different path?". Being a man of honesty, of fairness who always seeks the truth, one could sensibly justify his many arguments defending the boy and the considerably unreasonable amount of time he needed to word them. Additionally, he is a quiet man who does not see life as one-sided.

Read More
323 Words | 2 Pages

Quiet Kill “The reason I’m here sir is your renter claims you are throwing them out.” “That’s right. That’s what I said.” He opened his shirt and showed his Johnny Law badge. He noticed the ranger stepped back a foot.

Read More
488 Words | 2 Pages

Twelve Angry Men “A person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” In the play, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a nineteen years old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence were presented, the three that are weak include the one of a kind knife, the old men who heard the words “I’m going to kill you!” and the woman who is in question because of her glasses. Based on these, the boy is not guilty.

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 Rhetorical Analysis

Related Topics

Open Document