Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Analyze jurors in 12 angry men
12 angry men, juror 4
12 angry menessay juror number 3
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Analyze jurors in 12 angry men
12 angry men, juror 4
12 angry menessay juror number 3
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
How It All Began As the jurors step into the room, all 12 minds are set on the idea that without a doubt, the man in question has killed his father; all except one. More follow suit as the original mastermind stands up to the majority, and that majority soon becomes a minority. All endings do start with a beginning though, and that beginning is Juror Eight, who steps up to the challenge of becoming a justice seeker, and soon, others follow. In “Twelve Angry Men”, a play formed by Reginald Rose, Juror Eight is our shining protagonist, looking only to create fairness in the court of law.
Twelve Angry Men was about a group of jurors struggle to come with a verdict for a murder case. In the beginning, all but one tenacious juror believed that the eighteen year old boy was guilty of murdering his father. The main problem of the story was that the jurors verdict had to be unanimous. Through the process of trying to get each other to change positions, the jurors face many arguments and disagreements. The jurors personalities clash multiple times because each one has a different view on things and are adamant in their decisions.
He is now responding to what Juror Eight was shouting when he said “Perhaps you’d like to pull the switch” (42) . “For this kid? You bet I’d like to pull the switch.” This evidence is obviously telling us that Juror Three doesn’t
You know that " (19).From that statement alone it shows us that he is indeed a racist and should not being sitting on a jury, in a case where a man’s life is in the hands of these 12 men, and if he is going to judge based off of race makes it impossible to have a fair trial. Finally, as the play goes on more and more jurors are changing to a not guilty vote because of the facts being provided and realizing this boy could very much be innocent but juror number 10 stands where he has been the whole play claiming the boy is guilty. He is one of the last men to change his vote. In act three he makes a very long speech which doesn’t make a majority of the jurors very happy. Juror 10 says “don’t understand you people.
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.
Twelve angry men essay Juror eight brang the eleven-one guilty vote to a twelve-nothing non-guilty vote with compelling evidence, relatable facts and physical evidence that denies the opposing points and wins the boy his life and freedom. Juror eight took the non-lazy approach to making his arguments by visiting the scene finding the lies and reviewing the case the night before. The switch knife was a relatable piece of evidence that compelled the hardcore, new york jurors to the non guilty vote. The train statement was a great display of intellectual fact supporting aswell, which had nearly no flaws. When juror eight argued his point with the switch knife it was amazingly intelectual and clever.
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.
Many people claim that they could easily make the decision of guilty or not guilty, but is this really the case? The jurors in the play Twelve Angry Men are tasked with deciding the life of a boy accused of killing his father. This proves to be a daunting task for them as every juror except Juror 8 initially believes that the boy is not guilty. When asked to explain his reasoning for his verdict, he gives his reasons such as producing an exact replica of the knife and the woman across the el-tracks not wearing her glasses while spotting the murder take place. These two pieces of evidence prove to be the most crucial part of why the boy is innocent.
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
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.
In 12 Angry Men, the movie begins in a courtroom where the case is being discussed by the judge, who seems fairly uninterested. The jurors are then instructed to enter the jury room to begin their deliberations. They take a vote and all but juror 8 vote guilty. The jurors react violently to the dissenting vote but ultimately decide to go around the table in hope of convincing the 8th juror.
12 Angry Men is a movie about twelve jurors who discussing about a murder case of a teenage boy. The play is set in New York City Court of Law jury room in 1957. The decision to sentence the boy to death penalty lies upon these twelve gentlemen. Although, eleven of them found him guilty based on some ambiguous evidence, one man voted not guilty and started a promotion amongst them. This man is the one we should call the hero of the day since he pointed out all the missing points of the case leads to the innocent of the teenage boy.
12 angry men THE STORY UNFOLDS in front of us. The film places us as the audience into the shoes of the different jurors. Forcing us to make tough decisions of character and morality. We’re told very quickly and very efficiently that we’re dealing with a life-and-death situation. The jurors need to sentence a young man being accused of murder; all 12 jurors must come to a unanimous decision if they decide he’s guilty he’s be executed.
‘Twelve Angry Men’ written by Reginald Rose, is based on the story of a jury who have to come together to determine the fate of a young boy accused to have murdered his own father. Initially, eleven of the jurors vote not guilty with one of the juror being uncertain of the evidence put before them. As the men argue over the different pieces of evidence, the insanity begins to make sense and the decision becomes clearer as they vote several other times. Rose creates drama and tension in the jury room, clearly exploring through the many issues of prejudice, integrity and compassion, in gaining true justice towards the accused victim. These aspects have been revealed through three character who are Juror 10, Juror 8 and Juror 3.
People act upon what they think. Within “12 Angry Men”, all of the jurors have an opinion but some voice their more than others. One juror in particular, Juror Ten, voices his opinion about the boy in question. Repeatedly throughout the play, Juror Ten makes many thoughtless and hurtful comments about a certain kind of people. It is clear that Juror Ten’s uncompromising belief that the accused is guilty is because of his dislike for the boy’s race.