Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysis of twelfth night
Analysis of twelfth night
Analysis of twelfth night
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 twelfth night
Analysis of twelfth night
Analysis of twelfth night
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
In the play 12 Angry Men, a murder case is being reviewed by a jury. This jury must decide if a kid who killed his father is guilty or not. Two jurors that were on opposing sides for most of the play was Juror Eight and Juror Three. The reason they were on opposing sides was because Juror Three believed the kid was guilty, while Juror Eight believed there was not enough evidence to convict him. Most of the jurors wanted to settle on having reasonable doubt, so another jury could be called in.
What if juror 8 did not have the courage to freely state his opinion? The innocent boy would be dead for doing absolutely nothing.
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.
Guilty or not guilty, all citizens deserve a thorough trial to defend their rights. Formulating coherent stories from events and circumstances almost cost a young boy his life. In Twelve Angry Men, 1957, a single juror did his duty to save the life of an 18 year old boy by allowing his mind to rationalize the cohesive information presented by the court and its witnesses. The juror’s name was Mr. Davis, he was initially the only one of 12 jurors to vote not guilty in reason that the young boy, sentenced with first degree murder, may be innocent. I am arguing that system 1 negatively affects the jurors opinion on the case and makes it difficult for Mr. Davis to convince the other jurors of reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt is real doubt based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all evidence in a case. In criminal cases reasonable doubt is really important. If a jury in any case finds reasonable doubt, a defendant must be found not guilty. For instance the play 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, there is reasonable doubt surrounding the evidence of the knife the old men’s testimony, and the women’s testimony because that ill acquit a young men accused of the premeditated homicide of the father. In 12 Angry Men a young man is accused of the premeditated homicide of his father, however there are reasons to doubt the 19 year Old’s guilt is the evidence of the knife for instance, the store keeper testified
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
What is reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt is any piece of information, evidence, or clue that does not sound correct in the case, or any missing piece of evidence that leaves the jury to believe the man is innocent. These factors play a huge part in the defendant's life by deciding if they are given jail time or set free. In this passage, I will talk about what reasonable doubt is, and how Juror #8 convinced the other jurors that there was reasonable doubt in this case. If there is reasonable doubt in a case a jury should take note of that, and even if someone committed the crime but there is a reasonable doubt a jury should come up with a not guilty verdict or at least look into the case further.
In the beginning when the secret ballot took place, everyone voted guilty except for Juror #8, whose reasoning was that he felt sorry for the boy. The meaning behind reasonable doubt is that when the jury is presented evidence, they must prove that there could be no reasonable doubt that the person is guilty. If after the jury has discussed the evidence, and there is
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
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.
This is an important element when deciding who the best and worst jurors were. There were no facts as to who was right or wrong because we didn’t see the crime in question. All
This theory is practicable inside of the juror’s decisional processes of the “Twelve Angry Men.” Conformity is described from the beginnings of the film. When the jurors cast their initial vote, doubt is clear in many of the jurors whom vote guilty. This inhibition might be commented as weak belief shaked by the guilty majority’s influence. Additionally, though the movie is not provide any references about the timelines of decision this is a relevant factor presumably affecting the “Twelve Angry Men,” and should be considered as a potential element in creating social
Other jurors feel annoyed after listening to Juror 8 statements.