More handpicked essays just for you.
Juror 3 and 8 are important in twelve angry men
Juror 3 and 8 are important in twelve angry men
Juror 9 in 12 angry men
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.
Juror 10 categorizes those who live in the slum with statements such as “ They don’t need any real big reason to kill someone, either. You know, they get drunk, and bang, someone’s lying in the gutter…most of them, it’s like they have no feelings”. He makes strong generalized statements classifying all kids who are born in an environment where there is violence and poverty as criminals, although they may hold no criminal record. It is this bias that leads him to believe that this kid has definitely murdered his
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.
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.
This juror believes the defendant's testimony is completely inaccurate because he is just a kid, and kids lie all the time. This is once again decided by prejudice and not regarding the actual testimony. Age does not prove whether a defendant is innocent or
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?
He seems in a way relatable to William Golding’s character, Simon, in The Lord of The Flies. Simon is seen as a sort of christ like figure, and while Juror 8 isn't anywhere near that level, he does seem to portray a sort of thoughtfulness and compassion that Simon does as well. All of the jurors are affected by peer pressure in different ways, and how they are effected is important to the
The main priority is to discuss the defendant’s innocence or guilt. By keeping the subject of discussion on the boy, Juror Eight, has an easier time convincing the rest of the jury that he is not guilty of the murder of his father. Juror Three, the main antagonist of Twelve Angry Men, doesn’t possess the perseverance that Juror Eight does. Juror Three doesn’t have a reasonable cause, which in turn weakens his argument. His bottled up emotions over his son become a problem later in the play when
Juror Eight also shows compassion when none of the twelve jurors were in favor of he the boy being innocent. Juror Eight kindheartedly stood up for the boy and explains, “To many questions were left unanswered.” He is also the only juror to not vote the boy guilty
However, he was very firm with his point of view and his uncertainty of the guilty and did not change his not guilty verdict to make the others happy. Some of the men in the jury were quite demeaning and only saw their own point of view, yet Juror #8 continued to keep his patience while others around him began to lose their temper. Of course, with the only fan in the room not working and blood level rising between the men, it grew to be extremely difficult to not grow angry easily. For instance, even after difficulty until the very end with the resentful, angry Juror #3, Juror #8, after finalizing the strenuous tally, brought the defeated man his jacket and gently helped him put it on. All in all, Juror #8 played a strong, significant role in the trial outcome by proving to all eleven men that the young man may not have been guilty.
Juror 8 is a natural leader, and one by one he persuades the other jurors to accept his arguments through persistence, supposing the evidence and suggesting that there are possible explanations to the witness stories and evidence given for the murder case. Rose uses Juror 8 to exemplify that there are many who take the aspects of justice seriously and can decide on fair verdicts. He says that he cannot “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”, demonstrating the ethical qualities that some of humanity possesses. He is also able to assert the views of intolerance and also comprehends that “prejudice obscures the truth”.
Having a biased jury is just one way Twelve Angry Men shows the dangers of the jury system. Throughout the course of the play, many of the jurors assume, because
If it wasn 't for Juror #8, I don 't know what terrible consequences would have been. Owing to his insistence, the case was discussed and everyone began to pay attention to the details of the case, testimony, evidence, and witness actions. In the end, twelve people overcame prejudice, ceased the conflict, and made the right decision. The play tells us that justice can be affected by prejudice very easily.
This makes Juror number three from the play was biased because he
Air Pollution in Houston Texas City of Houston air pollution levels to be unacceptable effecting the Houston residents and the general public. Air pollution in the City of Houston is caused by many sources including vehicle emissions from buses, trucks, and cars; With toxic pollutants coming from the 400 plus chemical facilities some being the largest in the U.S; 2 these include surface coating processes, dry cleaners, gas stations, printing processes, restaurants, charcoal barbecues, and gasoline-fueled lawn maintenance equipment. The city has made great strides over the past few years and is no longer in the running as the worst city with pollution issues, However, the City of Houston still has a long way to go. The City of Houston along with the State of Texas will need to ensure the safety of its residents
