The Hero of the Story in 'Twelve Angry Men'
When a life is on the line, to what extremes will you go to save it? What does guilty beyond a reasonable doubt really mean? In 12 angry men you have 11 people who are ready to send this young man off without a single syllable said in his favor. Then we meet Juror number 8, a man who is ready to put his neck on the line; in a room of hot, tired and angry men. To try and pull this case together, and maybe save a man’s life. When your pinned against the wall, would you give into what the rest of the crowd thinks or would you dig your heels in deep and push back? That’s what Juror 8 did he pushed back, and gave this trial his all. Some might even say he is the hero of the story; but how could you be a hero if you let a murderer loose?
“I urge you to deliberate honestly, and thoughtfully. You are faced with a grave responsibility.” The judge starts the show off with that line. Whichever way the jurors decide the
…show more content…
There is also almost always going to be a person who’s going to try and make your victory that much harder for Juror 8, that’s going head to head with Juror 3. With a man who already has his mind set to this thinking…” You come in here with your heart bleeding all over the floor about slums and injustices and you make up those wild stories, and you’ve got a couple of soft-hearted sobs listening to you. Well, I’m not...what’s the matter with you people? This boys is guilty! He’s got to burn! We’re letting him slip through our fingers…” We know that this is going to be a very hard pull for each man. Both have their reasons for what they believe, but who is right. Why should a man who has so much pointing towards him be let free? To go and do it again. With all the evidence no matter how hard Juror 8 tries fact provain. With the few followers that swinged to not guilty just as easily swing to guilty again. Leaving Juror 8 stand all alone again; for how can he become a
12 Angry Men Assessment: 12 Angry Men
755 Words | 4 PagesThough 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.
Twelve Angry Men: Comparing The Book And Film
726 Words | 3 PagesWhen asked why he voted not guilty, juror eight stated “Look, this boy has been kicked around all his life. You know---living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. He spent a year in and a half in an orphanage while his father served a jail term for forgery. That’s not a very good head start. He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years.
Character Differences In 12 Angry Men
1133 Words | 5 PagesWhile 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.
Peer Pressure In Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men
1247 Words | 5 PagesWhile 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.
Ethos, Pathos, Pathos And Logos In 12 Angry Men
1964 Words | 8 PagesWhat if juror 8 did not have the courage to freely state his opinion? The innocent boy would be dead for doing absolutely nothing.
Examples Of Innocence In 12 Angry Men
333 Words | 2 Pages“A person is innocent until proved guilty in a court of law” In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, an 18-year-old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence, the three that are in doubt are the old man hearing “I’m going to kill you!” as well as the weapon of choice and how it was replicated, and finally the woman’s testimony. In my opinion, the boy could have been proven guilty, based on these the boy is not guilty.
Ethos Pathos In 12 Angry Men
997 Words | 4 PagesIn his play Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose brings us back in time to 1957, to a jury room of a New York Court of Law where one man, Juror #8, confronts the rest of the jury to look at a homicide case without prejudice, and ultimately convinces Juror #2, a very soft-spoken man who at first had little say in the deliberation. Throughout the play, many of the jurors give convincing arguments that make one think about whether the boy is “guilty” or “not guilty.” Ultimately, one is convinced by ethos, logos, and pathos. We can see ethos, logos, and pathos having an effect on Juror #2 as he begins as a humble man and changes into someone brave at the end. Although all three modes play a part in convincing Juror #2, pathos was the most influential
Examples Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men
915 Words | 4 PagesPeople 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.
Fallacies In 12 Angry Men
1404 Words | 6 PagesThe script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar
12 Angry Men Rhetorical Analysis
1186 Words | 5 Pages8th 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.
Minority Influence In 12 Angry Men
1458 Words | 6 PagesThis movie is the best example of minority influence where in the earlier stage only one juror no. 8 says defendant is not guilty but in the end of the movie we see that he is able to influence all the jurors in a very logical manner which I am going to point out later so that all the jurors lastly says the defendant is not guilty. Minority influence is more likely to occur if the point of view of the minority is consistent, flexible, and appealing to the majority. The juror no. 8 doesn’t know defendant is guilty or not guilty but he has only doubt in his mind which he trying to clear during the entire film and with which he also able to clear the views of other
Juror Eight And Juror Three In John Steinbeck's 12 Angry Men
502 Words | 3 PagesJuror 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.
Argumentative Essay On 12 Angry Men
549 Words | 3 PagesThis man may be a bit timid in part due to his old age, but his quiet nature also makes him insightful, noticing very specific details about witnesses that many others on the jury missed. He seems to come off as the most respectable and well mannered man out of the twelve. He 's the first to change his vote to not guilty, mostly to give Juror 8 a chance to make his case and out of respect for his motives in gambling for support. In talking about the older man that gave testimony it 's almost as though he 's talking about himself, revealing that he wants to be useful and to do something valuable, even if it 's just this once as a juror. As you may have noticed out of all the twelve men in the movie, each and everyone of them has unique personalities, that all at one point throughout the trial, played a very effective role in deciding this boy 's fate.
Reasonable Doubt In Twelve Angry Men
1011 Words | 5 PagesReasonable doubt proves that critical thinking is important when someone’s life is in someone else’s hands. “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, is a play about twelve jury members who must deliberate and decide the fate of a man who is accused of murdering his father. These twelve men must unanimously agree on whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty without reasonable doubt. Just like the jurors, the readers of this play have not witnessed the crime that took place before the trial started. Everyone, but the writer, is in the dark about who committed the crime.
12 Angry Men Case Study
858 Words | 4 PagesHe’s slipping through our fingers!” Juror 8 told Juror 3 that he wants the boy to die because of his own desire rather than the actual
More about The Hero of the Story in 'Twelve Angry Men'
12 Angry Men Assessment: 12 Angry Men
755 Words | 4 PagesTwelve Angry Men: Comparing The Book And Film
726 Words | 3 PagesCharacter Differences In 12 Angry Men
1133 Words | 5 PagesPeer Pressure In Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men
1247 Words | 5 PagesEthos, Pathos, Pathos And Logos In 12 Angry Men
1964 Words | 8 PagesExamples Of Innocence In 12 Angry Men
333 Words | 2 PagesEthos Pathos In 12 Angry Men
997 Words | 4 PagesExamples Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men
915 Words | 4 PagesFallacies In 12 Angry Men
1404 Words | 6 Pages12 Angry Men Rhetorical Analysis
1186 Words | 5 PagesMinority Influence In 12 Angry Men
1458 Words | 6 PagesJuror Eight And Juror Three In John Steinbeck's 12 Angry Men
502 Words | 3 PagesArgumentative Essay On 12 Angry Men
549 Words | 3 PagesReasonable Doubt In Twelve Angry Men
1011 Words | 5 Pages12 Angry Men Case Study
858 Words | 4 Pages