ipl-logo

12 Angry Men Weaknesses

749 Words3 Pages

12 Angry Men is an interesting story that centers on a persuasive man who was able to convince a group of jurors that a defendant with a lot of evidence against him was actually innocent of the crime for which he was charged. I was impressed by his ability to influence a large group who felt so strongly that the boy was guilty. Going against the majority opinion by an individual person requires great charisma. In the play 12 Angry Men, Reginald Rose shows us the value of reasonable doubt in order to protect the rights of the defendant as well as the weakness of juror bias, combined with the pressure of the voting system in order to show us the justice system should work in the fairest way possible.
One strength of the justice system that is …show more content…

One weakness in the justice system is the prejudices and biases of some of the jurors. Juror 3’s anger towards his son makes him biased against the defendant so he tries to block out the possibility of the defendant being innocent. We see this in the play when the text states “I haven't seen him in three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids! You work your heart out. . . .” This proves that he sees the defendant as just another “rotten kid” who disrespects his father. The use of the word rotten shows that Juror 3 has already made up his mind about the defendant and is unlikely to change it, which is a major problem in a trial where a juror is supposed to view both sides fairly. These biases in juror 3 lead to him being the last one to vote not guilty which shows how it affects the justice system. Juror 3 also made a fool of himself by getting very emotional which wasn’t that relevant to the …show more content…

Even though there are jurors that you cannot persuade easily there are some lazy jurors like juror 7 who doesn’t take anything seriously and votes with the majority opinion. We see this when juror 7 randomly changes his vote for no reason or evidence. We know that he changed his vote to the majority opinion because at the beginning of the play he said “I think the guy's guilty. You couldn't change my mind if you talked for a hundred years.” Then all of a sudden he changed his vote to non-guilty when everyone else did. Right after he changed his vote to nonguilty, the other jurors in the room question him on why he changed his vote and they get mad at him for voting towards the majority opinion. Juror 7 may have done this because we know has Yankees tickets for later in the day and he just wants to leave. He rarely talked in the jury room and the only times he did was when he was talking about the Yankees and

Show More
Related
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
502 Words | 3 Pages

His own son hasn’t seen him in years and he want to take out his anger on whoever he can, which just so happens to be the kid on trial. Juror Three’s feelings led him to be prejudice against the kid on trial. At the very end, he becomes visibly upset and give his final verdict, not

Read More
681 Words | 3 Pages

This detachment within the Juror, ignoring the life of another person, and choosing not to vote without spending the time to discuss the situation, which may have ended up with the unjust death of an innocent boy. Juror 7 immediately brushes off the severity of the situation, relating to a matter of “anything” when it is in fact anything

Read More
902 Words | 4 Pages

Deeper into the play Juror Three is enraged because the defendant killed his dad and he personally related. Deep down Juror Three wanted the defendant to be convicted as guilty due to how Juror Three felt about the falling out with his son; he wanted his son to pay for leaving. Juror Three held this grudge until the end of the drama where Juror Eight states, “It’s not your boy. He’s somebody else.” (Rose, pg 74).

Read More
708 Words | 3 Pages

Juror eight believes that the kid is innocent but the rest do not agree. He has to try to convince the others while they keep putting him down and telling him that it's obvious that the kid is guilty. Juror ten says, “Look, we’re all grown-ups here. We heard the facts, didn’t we?

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
434 Words | 2 Pages

He realizes this when he “contorts [his face] and he begins to pound on [the] table with his fist,” and “seems [to be] about to cry” (Rose 63). This is when Juror 3 realizes that his negative experience with his son has dictated his distaste toward the boy and that he had no real reason to oppose him as much as he did. Though being the most stubborn of the jurors, being able to re-examine the beliefs and opinions he is so fixated on empowers Juror 3 to be able to demonstrate personal accountability, showing how important personal accountability is to confronting one’s past and biases. Throughout the play, because of his loud and opinionated personality, Juror 3 assumes leadership of those voting guilty. This is in stark contrast to Juror 8, a thoughtful person who is willing to give the benefit of the doubt who is the first person to vote not guilty to give the boy a chance.

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
569 Words | 3 Pages

In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, we can see that prejudice gets in the way of truth. Many of the jurors that participated have let prejudice get in their way to see the truth and look at the real situation and facts, for example, Juror Three, who “is a very strong, very forceful, extremely opinionated man within whom can be detected a streak of sadism… is intolerant of opinions other than his own, and accustomed to forcing his wishes upon others.” He has a son that he identifies as a “tough guy”, which is one of the descriptions of the 19-year-old accused, Juror Three let the image of his own son be reflected on the boy and made him think unfairly. Getting to the bottom of a complex issue takes time and effort. At the beginning of the play, most jury members wanted to get over the case and go home as early as they could, but one of the jury members, Juror Eight, who was sure the boy was not guilty, took many hours to question the evidence and the case and murder itself, but he was not the only one as other jury members also spoke about what they thought in the past options, fairly quick, it was almost six in the evening and Juror Six wanted to leave to go to his family, it may have been more of an excuse to leave, but the jurors did not let him leave because they had gone far enough to decide where the trial was going

Read More
904 Words | 4 Pages

In the late 1930s, the stock market crashed and millions were left jobless and hungry. Almost half a million people left their homes and moved to California in hopes of finding jobs. Through photos, music, and articles, we are able to get a closer look at what life was really like during the 1930s. Looking through the photos, I noticed a look of despair and hopelessness in everyone. In many of the pictures, the most prominent feature I saw was a sense of loneliness.

Read More
401 Words | 2 Pages

He felt as if no one should feel the way three’s son treated his father. He soon realizes this boy is not his son; he is not the one who he should feel angry and bitter towards. The play ends with juror three voting not guilty, after tearing a picture of him and his son together, then hugging the picture. This proves the central idea because his pride misrepresented the case; he shows no mercy toward the defendant, in spite of his own

Read More
842 Words | 4 Pages

When the vote was first taken, Juror eight was the only person to vote not guilty. The other jurors got aggravated at how stupid they thought his decision was, they were all shocked at how obvious they thought it was that the young man killed his father. For example, right after they find out Juror eight voted not-guilty, Juror four exclaims “Look! What is there about the case that makes you think the boy is innocent?”(14). Juror four is very perplexed with Juror eight's decision, as is everyone else.

Read More
803 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More
842 Words | 4 Pages

Juror 3 was intimidating the other jurors, trying to convince them to stick with the guilty verdict. Juror 2 was guilty of self-censorship agreeing with the rest of the group to influence his decisions. The whole group began with the illusion of unanimity. According to Janis illusion of unanimity is, “the majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.” (Psysr.org,

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

More about 12 Angry Men Weaknesses

Related Topics

Open Document