12 Angry men is about 12 jury members and a foreman who are trying to determine if a boy is innocent or guilty. The case is about a boy who allegedly killed his father. All of the Jurors thought the boy with guilty but one, which was number 8. He wanted to make sure that everyone knew all the evidence so, they would be sure before they send a boy to jail. Number 3 was very strongly convinced throughout the whole trial that the boy was guilty. Juror number 8 and number 3 didn’t have much in common. But the only things they had in common were negative things, they never could agree on the evidence that was being brought to them to help the case.
“NO. 8: (to NO. 3). You're alone.
NO. 3: I don't care whether I'm alone or not! I have a right.
…show more content…
He didn't have any true evidence on why he was innocent but his gut feeling. His first priority was to make all the other twelve jurors think the same as him. “It’s not that easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy to jail” (12 Angry Men). He didn't want to send a innocent boy to rot in jail for something he didn't do. He went through all the facts and let everyone talk and the counter act on what everyone else said. Juror number 3 is a very angry man who wants for the boy in question to be guilty. He wants nothing more than for him to go to jail. Juror number 3 doesn't stick to the facts he made the case more personal then it should have been. He stuck to one piece of evidence and then went on that piece until everyone agreed with him. He brought up a few times how his childhood was bad and brought a picture to show everyone and guilt trip them. The only reason he wanted the boy to be guilty was because of his own problems. “Listen. What's the matter with you? You're the guy. You made all the arguments. You can't turn now. A guilty man's gonna be walking the streets. A murderer. Hes got to die. Stay with me.” (Rose 30). He wants the boy to be sent away because of his father when he was a