ipl-logo

Why Is Juror 11 Important In 12 Angry Men

511 Words3 Pages

Juror 11’s unique perspective Juror #11 is a refugee who loves the freedom of america and the fact that he has rights such as having his own opinion. He is now pursuing the american dream and his time has come to serve jury duty. Although almost all the jurors came from america juror #11 was a refugee from another country he is able to have a unique perspective none of the other jurors have. Juror #11 may be a refugee but he brings something that the other jurors need and that is fair and open mindedness. Juror #11 is from a foreign country and knows what it is like to have injustice he knows what the boy will feel like if he is proven guilty and can't do anything about it. Juror #11 likely came from a place that did not have the freedom that we do. Juror #11 fights for freedom for this boy he does not appreciate the way that the other jurors are handling this because he knows that the other jurors cannot fathom what it is like to have no rights and freedom. …show more content…

The others don't understand what it is like to have no say and not be able to do anything about it. Juror #11 came to america and has the freedom that that the others have but he has not always had that. Something like a baseball game doesn't mean anything to him this is way more important than that this means everything to the boy and every thing to juror #11. He sees something that the others can't and that is freedom the other jurors have never known anything

Show More
Related
648 Words | 3 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.

Read More
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
1072 Words | 5 Pages

A court is only as sound as its jury, and a jury is only as sound as the men who make it up. I am confident that you gentlemen will review without passion the evidence you have heard, come to a decision, and restore this defendant to his family. In the name of God, do your duty." Juror 8 is very outspoken because he is the only one in the beginning that think the boy is not guilty. This leads him to stand up against all of the other jurors so that he can clearly get his point across.

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
1964 Words | 8 Pages

What is worth our attention in this movie is how in the beginning they are trying to convince each other to vote guilty. 11 juror voted guilty and only one voted not guilty. Their judgments were based upon either their past personal experience which created their thoughts and behavior or upon facts. Juror 8 represents the conscience. He stood up for his inner feelings that the accused young boy is innocent.

Read More
708 Words | 3 Pages

Juror eight believes that the kid is innocent but the rest do not agree. He has to try to convince the others while they keep putting him down and telling him that it's obvious that the kid is guilty. Juror ten says, “Look, we’re all grown-ups here. We heard the facts, didn’t we?

Read More
755 Words | 4 Pages

Furthermore, when the picture of juror 3’s family falls out of his wallet and after he angrily rants to the men, he rips up the picture and begins to weep. When this is done it becomes obvious to the men how the difference in lifestyles affected all the entire day that they had endured. Furthermore, in seeing juror 3 release himself of his personal issues and the malaise he has towards his own family, the methods of groupthink are used and dismissed after each of the men decide their votes with their heart, and come to the conclusion presenting the young boy to be

Read More
692 Words | 3 Pages

Juror number 12 was so worried about missing the baseball game that he got tickets for he was just agreeing with everyone else and not really putting in his actual opinion. When the discussion started to come to a close juror number 12 switched from saying the boy was guilty to not guilty. When asked why he didn’t think he the boy was guilty he couldn’t give an answer. He was so messed up with his priorities that it started to rain, and he knew the game was canceled but was still worried about missing it. When asked why he thought the boy was guilty juror number 5 passed to talk about why he thought that way.

Read More
1186 Words | 5 Pages

8th juror appeals to their sense of pathos and pity by saying “this boy’s been kicked around all his life… He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.” While this has nothing to do with the case, he hopes to appeal to their humanity in order to get them to give him a chance in these deliberations.

Read More
1346 Words | 6 Pages

Every single other jury member has some reason as to why they voted, whether it be prejudice, gut feeling, based on the evidence, or just voting with the majority so they can all go home. Juror 3 is different. While everyone else contributes something about the case into their reason, Juror 3 simply chooses guilty based on events in his past. Nothing else. He’s different than the other jurors.

Read More
911 Words | 4 Pages

On the other hand, Juror 11, despite being an “immigrant”, has full faith in the American Judicial System and allows himself to take decisions logically rather than emotionally. He explains other jurors that they have no “right to play with the boy’s life”. Juror 4 passionately tries to influence the jury into “[talking] facts” whereas he himself is obscured by the truth that he himself is giving opinions. Rose conveys to the audience that people who take decisions based on emotion are not always accurate.

Read More
665 Words | 3 Pages

The jurors took literally almost day just bickering and arguing over whether the boy was guilty or not. In act two the jurors were starting to change their mind about their vote on whether or not the boy was guilty or not. That is where they started to kind of come to an agreement. From the beginning of act one juror number eight was always on the boys side, and the other guys always questioned why he thought the boy was innocent. Juror number eight did not have a reason he said “ he’s nineteen years old”.

Read More
583 Words | 3 Pages

When juror three says “he hit me”,this is important because it shows juror thinks that kids who don’t listen to their parents are either from a slum neighborhood or are slum kids. He also compares his son to the boy without realizing it and judges the boy without even knowing him formally. This shows his internal conflict of anger with his son. Juror 5 also has past experiences that affect his decision making. “I used to play in a backyard filled with garbage.

Read More
814 Words | 4 Pages

With selfish attitudes like this, it was unlikely that Juror 10 would be interested in the truth behind the evidence and the case itself. Hence, his racial prejudice was important in determining his vote. He believes the boy is guilty, not because the facts point to it, but because of the boy’s ethnicity. It is clear that Rose has constructed Juror 10 as a means of identifying that prejudice,

Read More
915 Words | 4 Pages

His prejudice is clear when he says that “I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say” when speaking about the boy (16). Juror Ten’s prejudice causes him to disregard all of the facts that are presented to him by Juror Eight that can prove that the accused is not guilty. Juror 10 allows his prejudice to blind him of the truth. That is until he is called out by his fellow jurors.

Read More

More about Why Is Juror 11 Important In 12 Angry Men

Related Topics

Open Document