ipl-logo

What Does Juror 4 Mean

519 Words3 Pages

Machine or Human? The 1950s was the time of the third major Industrial Revolution where machines are seen in every city and act accordingly with neither change nor emotion in every step they take. Similar to these machines is Juror #4 from the drama playwright, Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose. In the play, twelve men in 1957 are presented with a case regarding a boy committing murder to the first degree, with Juror 4 and the other ten believing he is guilty, while Juror 8 believes he is innocent. Ultimately, this leads to Juror 4 and Juror 8 to use their wits and reasoning to persuade the other jurors to choose between “guilty,” or “not guilty.” In the drama Twelve Angry Men, Rose indirectly characterizes Juror #4 as reasonable, in order …show more content…

For example, Juror #4 counters Juror #11 with, “two points. One: in his state of panic he may not have heard the scream. Perhaps it wasn’t very loud. Two: if he did hear it, he may not have connected it with his own act. Remember, he lived in a neighborhood where screams were fairly commonplace” (Rose 40). Juror #4 does not attack Juror #11 himself for what he said but instead explains why he believes the defendant is guilty. He brings up facts that are relevant to the situation and his argument to make it more persuasive. While Juror #4 does hypothesize, it is a reasonable assumption due to all of the evidence he has already listed as well as the evidence brought in court. Moreover, Juror #4 describes how the witness “saw the killing through the windows of the passing el train. She says that the lights went out immediately after the killing but that she got a good look at the boy in the act of stabbing his father. As far as I can see, this is unshakeable testimony” (Rose 66-67). Most of the other jurors twist the facts and speculate in order to change it in their favor. However, Juror #4 does not do this and instead states the witness’ testimony as is, he does not add his personal opinion to it or tells the testimony in an overdramatic way. He simply states the facts to persuade the other jurors to believe the defendant is guilty. Essentially, J4

Show More
Related

Juror 3 Stubbornness Quotes

310 Words | 2 Pages

In the play "Twelve Angry Men" by Reginald Rose, Juror 3 displays stubbornness as a character trait and it significantly impacts the story. The play follows the jury in a murder case, if the defendant is convicted he will be given the death penalty so it is critical for jurors to be open-minded. Juror 3’s stubbornness is evident when he states, “I don’t care whether I’m alone or not. It’s my right” (71). This quote highlights Juror 3's stubbornness as he refuses to listen to the other jurors and consider their points of view.

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

What Is The Mood Of The 4th Juror 4

1823 Words | 8 Pages

Morgan Maynard Dr. Milburn ENG 121 6 June 2024 Eleven Angry Men and One Calm Man In Reginald Rose’s innovative play Twelve Angry Men, the mood of the play from the start can be interpreted as very serious and hostile among the jurors. This is due to the task at hand of determining the guilt or innocence of a young defendant, which causes emotions to run high among the jurors. While the mood of aggression seems to be a mutual emotion of all jurors, there is one that stands out from the rest. Though he may not be as memorable as Juror 8 or Juror 3, Juror 4 plays an important role of being the level-headed member of the jury. Juror 4 stands out from the others because he employs logic, conducts factual analysis, and maintains a composed demeanor to navigate the intense deliberations.

Read More

12 Angry Men Rhetorical Analysis

681 Words | 3 Pages

The jurors continually exhibit the opposite of the aforementioned emotions and beliefs. After the protest by the 8th Juror about the oddly quick guilty verdict voted on by the jurors, the 7th Juror dismissed him continually, “It’s just that we’re talking about somebody’s life here. I mean, we can’t decide in five minutes. Suppose we’re wrong? 7TH

Read More

Rhetorical Strategies In To Kill A Mockingbird And 12 Angry Men

526 Words | 3 Pages

He argues that there is reasonable doubt in the case and that the accused might not be guilty. Juror #8's credibility is further strengthened when he produces a similar knife that the accused used to kill the victim and shows that the knife is not as unique as the prosecution claimed it to

Read More

Twelve Angry Men: Reasonable Doubt In The Justice System

651 Words | 3 Pages

Ian Marthaler Mrs. Coplin Composition 13 March 2023 Reasonable Doubt in The Justice System In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, twelve jury members must decide whether the son is guilty of murdering his father. They must unanimously agree on whether the son is guilty or not guilty based on the facts.

Read More

Twelve Angry Men, By Reginald Rose

333 Words | 2 Pages

In the drama, “Twelve Angry Men,” by Reginald Rose. A 19 year old boy is a suspect in the murdering of his father. A jury of twelve men is left to decide his fate, guilty or not guilty. Juror 10 is biased and a hypocrite, which helped them reach a unanimous vote of not guilty.

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

12 Angry Men Assessment: 12 Angry Men

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

Why Is Juror 8 Wrong

1470 Words | 6 Pages

You can suppose anything.” By voting not guilty Juror 8 made a decision, unlike the other jurors; Juror 8 put away his biased ways and came to a decision. Not only did Juror 8 think but he questioned the validity of the facts. Many members of the jury remained neutral throughout the deliberation that the statements of 'witnesses' were true when in-fact, such 'facts' Juror 8 disproves the statements and 'facts', convincing much of the jury of the defendant’s innocence.

Read More

How Does Juror Number 8 Trying To Raise Reasonable Doubt In 12 Angry Men

690 Words | 3 Pages

He takes the vote from 11-1, guilty, to 12-0, not guilty. Juror #8 believes there is room for reasonable doubt and refuses to back down until the jury agrees. Juror #8 uses persuasion when trying to raise reasonable doubt by acting out what the old man claimed happened and proving that the testimony given by the old man may not have been completely true. He acts out the testimony

Read More

Character Differences In 12 Angry Men

1133 Words | 5 Pages

While both end up voting the same way, their approaches throughout the majority of the film are vastly different. To start, the third juror is much more factual, stating in the film, “Okay let’s get the facts… and he ran to the door of his apartment and the boy!”(12 Angry Men) This immediately shows the viewer that Juror 3 will base the majority of his argument in fact. In contrast, Juror 8 feels that communicating with the other jurors and piecing together their views is a better way to solve the case. This is shown when Juror 8 says, “There were eleven votes guilty.

Read More

Examples Of Social Injustice In 12 Angry Men

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

12 Angry Men Are There In A Few Good Men

1535 Words | 7 Pages

(Fonda, Rose & Lumet, 1957) Juror #3, now physically held back from attacking Juror #8, begins shouting, “I'll kill him!” to which Juror #8 replies, “You don't really mean you'll kill me, do you?” proving his earlier point that people often say things in the heat of the moment that they don't really mean. (Fonda, Rose & Lumet, 1957) Juror #11, a European immigrant, gives an impassioned speech about their duty as a jury, and about democracy, saying that they have nothing to gain or lose from the verdict in the case, so they should not take it all so

Read More

12 Angry Men Case Study

858 Words | 4 Pages

In a New York City, an 18-year-old male from a slum is on a trial claiming that he is responsible for his father death by stabbing him After both sides has finished their closing argument in the trial, the judge asks the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty or not The judge informs the jury decided the boy is guilty, he will face a death sentence as a result of this trial The jurors went into the private room to discuss about this case. At the first vote, all jurors vote guilty apart from Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), he was the only one who voted “Note Guilty” Juror 8 told other jurors that they should discuss about this case before they put a boy into a death sentence

Read More

More about What Does Juror 4 Mean

Related Topics

Open Document