ipl-logo

Juror's Paragraph In 12 Angry Men

648 Words3 Pages

Cierra Egerton Why Juror 10 Wasn’t A Fit Juror Member Paragraph.

In the play 12 angry men by Reginald Rose there were several unfit jurors to sit on a jury but by far juror #10 stood out the most to me as being the most unfit. First off the first line to come out of juror number tens mouth shows what his clear opinion of the boy and the whole situation is. Juror number 10 says "It’s tough to figure, isn’t it? A kid kills his father. Bing! Just like that. Well, it’s the element. They let the kids run wild. Maybe it serves ‘em right" (17).Coming into this situation right from the start without even getting into a discussion about everything he starts talking bad about the father and son. It tells us a lot …show more content…

In addition, in act 1 he clearly states his opinion and makes it clear he is a racist. When everybody is discussing their feelings towards the situation juror #10 comes out and says “I don’t mind telling you this, mister. We don’t owe him a thing. He got a fair trial, didn’t he? You know what that trial cost? He’s lucky he got it. Look, we’re all grownups here. You’re not going to tell us that we’re supposed to believe him, knowing what he is. I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say. 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. How can you believe this kid

Show More
Related
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
502 Words | 3 Pages

Juror Eight was the only man from the beginning of the play who stuck by his belief that the kid was innocent. He stood alone in front of the other jurors and defended himself from the other jurors, such as Juror Three and Juror Ten. Jurors Three and Ten were adamant that the kid was guilty and refused to listen to Juror Eight’s “nonsense”. Juror Eight’s evidence and speeches persuaded all the other jurors to change their vote from not guilty, except for Juror Three. The only reason Juror Three had it out for the kid was because he himself had some issues with kids respecting their parents, and specifically their fathers.

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
276 Words | 2 Pages

They don’t know what truth is” (Ross 59). When Juror 10 says these things we can see how his prejudice affects his ability to discover the truth. Many of the other jurors show no real sign of bias when discussing the innocence or guiltiness of the kid. For example, near the end of the play Juror 4 states, “I still believe the boy is guilty of murder. I’ll tell you why.

Read More
760 Words | 4 Pages

For example, Juror 3 is convinced that the boy is guilty because he has a strained relationship with his own son. He projects his own feelings of anger and resentment onto the boy, and argues that he must be guilty based on his own experiences. Juror 10 is

Read More
536 Words | 3 Pages

Angry!’ Juror 3 yells and screams about his personal opinions preventing the jurors from thinking e=clearly, as their thoughts worsen in the hot environment. This effect prevents the jurors from deciding whether the kid isn’t guilty with ethical assumptions. Juror 3 has to be pressured by all the facts and other juror for him to realise the kid is not guilty. Family complications affect juror 3’s opinions therefore also affecting the other jurors.

Read More
1169 Words | 5 Pages

Twelve Angry Men, written by the American playwright Reginald Rose, is a play depicting the workings of the American judicial system in 1957 that aid in forming the speculations of the murder case. In addition, it exemplifies the communal values in the society, the different etiquettes and affairs in America during the 1950’s. In the play, Rose displays a biased jury consisting of twelve men from distinct backgrounds that have contrasting views, opinions and reasons are entrusted with announcing a boy’s innocence or guilt over a patricide. Twelve Angry Men, is a celebration of justice and likewise a warning about the fragility of justice and the strengths of complacency, prejudice, and absence of civic responsibility that would undermine it. Several members of the jury demonstrate that they are practically unequipped for considering the murder case reasonably and

Read More
1458 Words | 6 Pages

Mobashshir Arshad Ansari DM 16230 The movie “12 Angry Men” is a court drama based movie. The entire film takes place within a small New York City jury room, on "the hottest day of the year," as 12 men debate the fate of a young defendant charged with murdering his father. Most courtroom movies feel it necessary to end with a clear-cut verdict. But "12 Angry Men" never states whether the defendant is innocent or guilty if innocent then who is guilty.

Read More
803 Words | 4 Pages

This process continues throughout the course of the movie, and each juror’s biases is slowly revealed. Earlier through the movie, it is already justifiable to label juror 10 as a bigoted racist as he reveals strong racist tendencies against the defendant, stating his only reason for voting guilty is the boy’s ethnicity and background. . Another interesting aspect of this 1957 film is the “reverse prejudice” portrayed by juror

Read More
981 Words | 4 Pages

Especially in today's time people are racist, angry, and just do not want to take time out of their everyday lives for jury duty. This trial was completely backwards; instead of going from innocent until proven guilty, it went from guilty to innocent. This movie makes one wonder how often juries really are this way, instead of innocent until proven guilty. Mr. Davis had an extremely hard time convincing all the jurors that there was a reasonable doubt. Davis had to say that he did not know if the defendant was innocent, Davis just knew that he had a reasonable doubt.

Read More
591 Words | 3 Pages

The justice system that relies on twelve individuals reaching a life-or-death decision has many complications and dangers. The play Twelve Angry Men, by Reiginald Rose, illustrates the dangers of a justice system that relies on twelve people reaching a life-or-death decision because people are biased, they think of a jury system as an inconvenience, and many people aren’t as intelligent as others. The first reason why Reiginald illustrates dangers is because people can be biased or they can stereotype the defendant. The Jurors in Twelve Angry Men relate to this because a few of them were biased and several of them stereotyped the defendant for being from the slums. The defendant in this play was a 19 year old kid from the slums.

Read More
665 Words | 3 Pages

He was bitter and didn’t value any human life except his own. He thought the boy was guilty because the color of his skin. Juror number ten said “Most of them”

Read More
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
810 Words | 4 Pages

The movie “Twelve Angry Men” shows twelve jurors deciding the fate of a teenage boy. All of the jurors can be described differently due to their personalities. In this case, they are being described as shapes. In the diagram shown above, some shapes demonstrate more than one configuration. This is a representation of the multiple layers that make up the personality of people.

Read More
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

More about Juror's Paragraph In 12 Angry Men

Related Topics

Open Document