ipl-logo

Juror 3 Character Analysis Essay

980 Words4 Pages

Foreman (Juror 1): He is an assistant football coach at a High School. Elected as the foreman of the jury, he has the responsibility to keep the jury process organized. Although he is not particularly bright, he is dogged. Initially, he struggled to keep up with his authority. Eventually, he managed to weight to his authority as the foreman as well as his opinions. Juror 2: He is an introvert who works as a bank clerk. Meek and high in agreeableness, he cannot hold an opinion of his own and adopts the opinion of the last person who has spoken. He seemed happy when he managed to help during the timing of recreating the ‘old man walking’ scene. Juror 3: He is an impulsive, humourless and extremely opinionated character whose own conflict with his own son caused him to take the case personally. Being a Controller (intuitor/judger temperament) with low emotional stability and high in competitiveness, he displayed his ‘bull’ tendency when other Jurors do not share the same opinions as him.This can be seen during the many times in the movie where he happens to have a conflict with Juror 8 over the difference in their view. This relationship of theirs is denoted by a zigzag line in the sociogram. His Type A personality clashes with majority of the Jurors as he uses …show more content…

He displays the tendency of an introverted Pragmatist with the Thinker preferences. Therefore, it takes him very long and requires several opinions laid out by other Jurors to change his mind from ‘guilty’ to ‘not guilty’. At the same time, he was firm and unafraid to stand up for himself once he changed his vote. He is sympathetic towards the boy as he grew up in the slum himself which caused him to disagree with Juror 3 numerous time. Therefore, his own upbringing in the slum makes him more knowledgeable about how the boy could have handled the switchblades and also the traits of living in the slum in

Show More
Related
997 Words | 4 Pages

He then decides to recreate what the old man said he did on the night on the murder. Juror #2 seems really interested in this argument and even volunteers to help with the time. In the beginning of Act 2, the jury decides to vote once more. At the time, Juror #2’s vote was “not

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
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
1133 Words | 5 Pages

As for Juror 3, he prefers loud, yelling, and calling people out and telling them they are wrong. This is why Juror 3 is represented with a lightning bolt. On the outside, he is obviously quick striking, hot, and loud. He can obviously be seen in the film yelling and attacking every character. On the other hand, Juror 8 is more tranquil, and cool, and will let anyone speak.

Read More
380 Words | 2 Pages

Similarly, Juror Five has a perspective on the case, only it is parallel to the Third Juror, he sates, “I’ve lived in a slum all my life. I nurse that trash in Harlem Hospital six nights a week. I used to play in a backyard that was filled with garbage. Maybe it still smells on me” (Rose 18). By saying this, the third Juror admits that there is more to the kid accused, after all, he grew up in a very similar situation.

Read More
391 Words | 2 Pages

Juror 3 vs Juror 8: In Comparison and Contrast Juror 3, played by Lee J. Cobb and Juror 8, played by Henry Fonda, are both men of business, the former a literal businessman and the latter an architect, respectively, but differ in their personalities and sympathies that go along with them. Juror 3 and Juror 8 both share careers that deal either fully in business, or partially in business. Juror 3 is a businessman, as well as a father, as mentioned during his anecdote of his embarrassment after witnessing his nine year-old son run away from a fight, ending the story with his son punching him in the jaw at the age of 16. Juror 8 is an architect by trade, and must deal with some form of business during the architectural process. Since both

Read More
706 Words | 3 Pages

He has no sympathy and only cares about the evidence of the case. On the website Study.com i found “When Juror Eight feels sorry for the teenage defendant, who is accused of murdering his father, because of the bad lot this boy got in life, Juror Four starts fixing his hair as he is uninterested in anything except evidence. He then says, 'We 're not here to go into the reasons why slums are breeding grounds for criminals; they are. I know it. So do you.

Read More
1169 Words | 5 Pages

Juror 8 is a natural leader, and one by one he persuades the other jurors to accept his arguments through persistence, supposing the evidence and suggesting that there are possible explanations to the witness stories and evidence given for the murder case. Rose uses Juror 8 to exemplify that there are many who take the aspects of justice seriously and can decide on fair verdicts. He says that he cannot “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”, demonstrating the ethical qualities that some of humanity possesses. He is also able to assert the views of intolerance and also comprehends that “prejudice obscures the truth”.

Read More
202 Words | 1 Pages

My favorite character in the movie was juror 12 for many reasons in which he never went back on what be believed in, he always followed through with what he said and what he thought. The first reason was that he felt as if the boy was not guilty because he had many good reasons behind that. The juror felt as if many of the points the other juror’s were not valid at all as if most of the stuff didn’t add up at all. Juror 12 never went back on his word even when they voted multiple times even when they had more and more evidence. Mostly all points that the 12th juror was giving were all valid and he had so much faith in what he felt that was right.

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
981 Words | 4 Pages

Davis, Juror Eight, is the main character, protagonist, and was responsible for the boy's life in this film. He is an architect who was the first to vote "not guilty". Voting that way takes a lot of courage, because all the men just want to get out of there and not

Read More
630 Words | 3 Pages

Juror #3 mixed his personal conflicts with his son running away from home to the young man accused of hurting his father. His assumption was that young men who don't get along with their fathers might go as far as to kill him. Which is a very informal practice in a small group setting. Another incident of a informal role is to not provide the evidence first hand how can a room full of jurors decide the fate of somebody when they don't have precise evidence to incriminate him. Other jurors based the fact that the accused lived in a slum and that slum residents are delinquents by nature.

Read More
1254 Words | 6 Pages

For example we can see that Juror 7 had shown an extroverted personality type of people. He is more likely to enjoy talking and interaction with people. He can start any conversation with other people who he never knew before. For example, he started the conversation with Juror 6 in the room and just talk about the weather is hot and he thought that the room should be occupied with air-conditioner. Selfish attitude.

Read More
743 Words | 3 Pages

Jury 3 was a major contributor to the plot of the story, and constantly added outrage. He regularly brought unnecessary remarks and accusations to the jury room. His remarks and comments usually didn 't pursued the other 11 jury’s, but the criticism sure made things more hectic and frustrating. Jury 3 was for sure the antagonist in the story, with out him there wouldn 't of been

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 Juror 3 Character Analysis Essay

Open Document