Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Juror 4 in 12 angry men
Juror analysis in 12 angry men
Juror 9 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.
Juror 4 in 12 angry men
Juror analysis in 12 angry men
Juror 9 in 12 angry men
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
But who is Juror Eight, who are the men that follow him, and what are their reasons for doing so? An in depth highlight of three jurors, eight, five, & nine, will reveal the
“NO. 7: So what'd you vote not guilty for? NO. 8: There were eleven votes for guilty. It's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” (Lumet 5) Juror #8 is the only one that even tried to find more about the crime and the person, he is the only one that saw him as a kid and made everyone believe him then too. ”
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.
On the Waterfront and Twelve Angry Men are a piece of history where the society is seeking justice. In the play script Twelve Angry Men and in the film On the Waterfront, the themes discussed relate to the issue of corruption, power & control. On the waterfront considers the interpretation that power corrupts the innocent. In the film the audience may sympathise with Jonny
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.
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?
Juror 8 took it into his own hands to prove the prosecution wrong and purchase the same knife at a
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.
Daja McLaurin Benton TA: Yiwen Dai Communications: 250 1 April, 2016 12 Angry Men Assessment After viewing the movie 12 Angry Men the group was able to implement the ideas of group think immediately during the start of the movie. Since the men briefly established a relationship from the time of witnessing the trial to start of deliberation n the empty room and reaching a unanimous decision, they found that all of the men initially achieved a verdict of guilty accept for juror 8. After this surprising decision the men began to show their true colors and distinguish how one may believe something and another juror may believe another. The group takes time in pleading individual opinions while deciding on the guilt or innocence of a young boy
12 Angry is a classic, well-known play about a jury which is filled with bias. The play, written by Reginald Rose, has been made into a movie two times. In both remakes from 1957 and 1997, the screenplay does indeed differ from the play. But, whenever a play or book is made into a movie, some elements are lost. Sometimes characters or scenes get left out, or the movie loses the effect of the literature.
This man may be a bit timid in part due to his old age, but his quiet nature also makes him insightful, noticing very specific details about witnesses that many others on the jury missed. He seems to come off as the most respectable and well mannered man out of the twelve. He 's the first to change his vote to not guilty, mostly to give Juror 8 a chance to make his case and out of respect for his motives in gambling for support. In talking about the older man that gave testimony it 's almost as though he 's talking about himself, revealing that he wants to be useful and to do something valuable, even if it 's just this once as a juror. As you may have noticed out of all the twelve men in the movie, each and everyone of them has unique personalities, that all at one point throughout the trial, played a very effective role in deciding this boy 's fate.
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.
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
If it wasn 't for Juror #8, I don 't know what terrible consequences would have been. Owing to his insistence, the case was discussed and everyone began to pay attention to the details of the case, testimony, evidence, and witness actions. In the end, twelve people overcame prejudice, ceased the conflict, and made the right decision. The play tells us that justice can be affected by prejudice very easily.
But, instead of convincing juror #8 of their point, they are converted one by one to #8’s viewpoint, until the vote is 11 “not guilty” votes to 1 “guilty vote”. The others must try to win him over to their side. My favorite character was juror #8, because he was not lazy