ipl-logo

Juror # 3 In The Play '12 Angry Men' By Reginald Rose

766 Words4 Pages

In the play “12 Angry Men’’ by Reginald Rose, there are twelve jurors who are gradually revealed to have very different personalities, motivations and opinions. Juror #3 is portrayed as the main antagonist as his points on why the boy is guilty or innocent have a crucial role over the course of the play. We can say that Juror #3 has a rigid opinion and is not really used to people disagreeing or arguing with him as the play shows, as soon as he had an argument with Juror #8, he verbally attacks him and while some of the other Jurors are holding him back, he says “Let me go! I’ll kill him. I’ll kill him!” Which shows that he isn’t one of the Jurors that likes different ideas that go against his own. Towards the start of the play, he is the main reason almost all the jurors decided to vote ‘guilty’ as he gives convincing points to why he believes that the boy killed his father. After every single vote, one person moves to the ‘not guilty’ side and this annoyed him the most as a few people started questioning …show more content…

Especially the Jurors who want to sit and talk about why the boy is either guilty or not. He is called a ‘sadist’ and ‘self-appointed public avenger’ and he only wants the boy to die for personal reasons and not facts. After Juror #8 says this, the audience knows that Juror # isn’t one of the people in the room who has a good personality. The other jurors have many mixed reactions towards Juror #3 and his way of telling people that he is right and everyone else is wrong. Others in the room don’t enjoy how he has a ‘bully-like’ attitude and what he says goes as he talks with power and one of the examples of this is when he bullies Juror #2 as he is being swayed by both him and Juror #8 as they are debating on whether the boy is guilty or not. Juror #2 doesn’t really like how Juror #3 has conducted himself with this and he decides to move to Juror #8’s side as well and this eventually happens to all the

Show More
Related

Juror Three In Twelve Angry Men

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

Ethos Pathos In 12 Angry Men

997 Words | 4 Pages

In his play Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose brings us back in time to 1957, to a jury room of a New York Court of Law where one man, Juror #8, confronts the rest of the jury to look at a homicide case without prejudice, and ultimately convinces Juror #2, a very soft-spoken man who at first had little say in the deliberation. Throughout the play, many of the jurors give convincing arguments that make one think about whether the boy is “guilty” or “not guilty.” Ultimately, one is convinced by ethos, logos, and pathos. We can see ethos, logos, and pathos having an effect on Juror #2 as he begins as a humble man and changes into someone brave at the end. Although all three modes play a part in convincing Juror #2, pathos was the most influential

Read More

Juror Eight And Juror Three In John Steinbeck's 12 Angry Men

502 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More

Ethos, Pathos, Pathos And Logos In 12 Angry Men

1964 Words | 8 Pages

After watching 12 Angry Men, I was very inspired by juror 8 ' argument techniques. His eye contact, body language, tone, the persuasive techniques he used like induction, pathos, ethos and logos should be studied and analyzed in a very detailed, precise way. These factors were strong enough to change 11 angry men 's mind and to vote not guilty, even juror 3 who is the most stubborn. 12 Angry Men 's message toward individuals and the society as a whole is to think once and twice before judging, how to have a successful, convincing argument and most importantly, it encourage everyone to stand up for your opinion. One of the reasons why everyone should speak up is sometimes other people are thinking the same way, but they are not brave enough to express their opinion.

Read More

Juror 3 Character Analysis Essay

980 Words | 4 Pages

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

Read More

Analysis Of Stereotypes In 12 Angry Men

747 Words | 3 Pages

People tend to base characteristics of people pretty quickly; likewise, their personalities. Most people base their opinions on stereotypes. Reginald Rose and his play “12 Angry Men” demonstrate how people are quick to judge other people based on looks. In the movie all twelve jurors must decide if a young boy is guilty or innocent. At the beginning of the movie/play-write, only one juror, juror eight, decides the boy is innocent.

Read More

Peer Pressure In Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men

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

Jury Duty In Twelve Angry Men

1223 Words | 5 Pages

The jurors contradict themselves by starting off saying one thing and then later they say or do the exact opposite. Juror number seven in the play contradicted himself at the very beginning by saying the nineteen year old boy who was accused of stabbing his father in the stomach was completely quilty (Rose 315). The only reason Juror seven sided with the defendant being guilty at the beginning is because he didn’t want to sit in on the court case for a long time period because he had tickets for a baseball game which he thought was more of a priority than jury duty. He accused him of being guilty thinking everyone else would as well, therefore the case would end much earlier. He then contradicted himself by saying he was guilty for the longest time and then towards the end he was the only one out of a few others who said he was not guilty.

Read More

Twelve Angry Men, By Reginald Rose

474 Words | 2 Pages

The play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose the jury decides whether or not the boy is guilty of murder in the first degree. Juror Eight votes not guilty because, he needs more evidence. Juror Eight is compassionate, when all the other jurors voted the boy guilty. He tenderhearted proclaims that voting him guilty isn’t easy he implies, “Look this kids been kicked around his all his life.” Juror Eight doesn't want to just send the boy off to prison without further investigation.

Read More

What Is 12 Angry Men Jury Duty

1108 Words | 5 Pages

In a testament to both his own stubbornness and loyalty to the guilty cause, Juror #10 rebuffs every argument made by the not guilty party. Equally important, Juror #3 is willfully obtuse to the revelations made by the other jurors, marking him as the twelfth and final juror to vote not guilty. In the end, it takes the other men demanding his line of thinking for him to finally declare “not guilty” (Rose 115). Juror #3, being the main antagonist, is stuck in his pessimistic mindset and refuses to change his decision regarding the defendant’s fate. At times, it’s clear he is blowing off rationale for the sake of maintaining his guilty verdict.

Read More

Standing Up To The Majority In 12 Angry Men

1191 Words | 5 Pages

The play 12 Angry Men is about a jury of twelve men that are given the task of deciding the fate, guilty or not guilty, of a young boy accused of murdering his father. The theme of standing up against the majority is very prevalent in this story because of the decisions some of the jurors make throughout the play. Juror 8 makes the decision to vote not guilty, he is the one and only juror in this play that decides to vote not guilty for the boy in the beginning. The other eleven jurors decide to vote guilty because of the evidence that they have been presented with. The act of Juror 8 standing against the majority of the other jurors about the case, voting not guilty, allows the jurors to thoroughly dissect the case, understanding it fully and thoughtfully before making their decision of guilty or not guilty.

Read More

Discrimination In 12 Angry Men

1346 Words | 6 Pages

Juror 3 has his heart set that the boy is guilty, only because his own son left him years ago. In the movie he explains, I 've got a kid. When he was eight years old, he ran away from a fight. I saw him. I was so ashamed, I told him right out, ‘I 'm gonna make a man out of you or I 'm gonna bust you up into little pieces trying.’

Read More

12 Angry Men Analysis

814 Words | 4 Pages

Juror Ten announces his intentions very early in the play. He speaks loudly and forcefully from the beginning, clearly showing his racism and prejudice towards the boy. Juror 10 quickly votes guilty and asserts that the defendant cannot be believed because “they’re born liars”. Additionally, he claims that the “kids who crawl outa those places are real trash.”

Read More

Examples Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men

915 Words | 4 Pages

Throughout the whole play, Juror Ten remains stubborn in his decision that the defendant is guilty. Yet, at the end the finally sees that there is reasonable doubt (62). Interestingly enough, on the previous page Juror Ten is called out by Juror Four (60). The foreman also has some prejudice at the beginning of the case. He brings up another case that is similar to the one they are doing.

Read More

Fallacies In 12 Angry Men

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 In The Play '12 Angry Men' By Reginald Rose

Related Topics

Open Document