Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysis of juror 1 in 12 angry men
Analysis of juror 1 in 12 angry men
Characters in 12 angry men
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysis of juror 1 in 12 angry men
Analysis of juror 1 in 12 angry men
Characters in 12 angry men
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The fourth juror had brought out the actual knife, jammed it into the
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.
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.
What if juror 8 did not have the courage to freely state his opinion? The innocent boy would be dead for doing absolutely nothing.
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.
This proves that jurors are being irrelevant. Especially if it’s a case that is involved on a murder. Another action that wasn’t appropriate was when everyone took a vote and juror number 9 raised up his hand. Because of the fact that he was too
The first example of unfair bias seen in 12 Angry Men is that, Juror 3 let his relationship with his son get in the way of having an unbiased opinion on the justice of the boy on trial. Juror 3 explains to the rest of the jury that “When he
Although 3 does change his mind in the end, he is the last to change so he is the leader for the guilty side. In the end, the reader can look at figure 1. and take away the fact that juror 8 is the main character, and that jurors 3 and 8 causes the main conflict in the
The fact that one juror stood alone at one point made him looked dumb because he just wanted the case to be over with and he knew he wasn’t doing his job right. All he wanted was the client to have his death penalty which wasn’t right. He wasn’t following or doing his job right. The moral was that you can’t judge someone you have to prove that their guilty or else you can’t do anything about it. Juror 8 knew that very well so he did everything right.
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.
Leadership and roles are depicted throughout the whole movie by many different jurors. The designated leader of the jury group was Juror #1. Juror #1 was when they first entered into the room but Juror #8 took the emergent role when he declined to agree with a guilty verdict. His rejection to agree in a guilty verdict was crucial since he voiced his uncertainty to the evidence at a early stage.
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.
Persuasion is the key to success. However, to achieve the best outcome, many things play a role, some of which include logos, ethos and pathos. In the book Twelve Angry Men, jurors brought their ideas to the table through different perspectives. Having facts and evidence shows that you know what you talking about, and have looked further into the topic. The best persuasive appeal presented in Twelve Angry Men was logic.
Eventually, the votes of the eleven jurors are converted by convincing speech and peer pressure. Therefore, they made a not-guilty decision. Twelve Angry Men emphasize social psychology theories in the fields of conformity, eye-witness testimony, schemas and heuristics, attitude change (persuation and social influence) and group process (polarization).
The boy should deserve a careful discussion from jurors before face the result of the trial and he emphases that there were only two people who saw the whole process of the murder stabbing the boy’s dad Juror 8 questioned the weapon which claim to kill father, which is a normal switchblade that even juror 8 owns one himself Juror 8 told other jurors to revote, and if this time 11 jurors still think that the boy is guilty, then he will go with them and say that the boy is guilty too One person voted “Not Guilty” at the second