In act II of Twelve Angry Men, Juror #8 discussed with the rest of the jurors as to why he believed that the man was not guilty in his eyes. With the more corroboration that Juror #8 gave, the more jurors began to believe that the man might not be guilty but instead innocent. In act III of Twelve Angry Men, eventually, after countless discussions, including the substantial amount of evidence that was given, Juror #8 was able to persuade all but one of the jurors. The juror was eventually persuaded into switching his vote from guilty to innocent. Ultimately, the jurors unanimously voted that the man, which was accused of murdering his father, was undeniably innocent.
Juror 10 allows his prejudice to blind him of the truth. That is until he is called out by his fellow jurors. 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 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. His own son hasn’t seen him in years and he want to take out his anger on whoever he can, which just so happens to be the kid on trial. Juror Three’s feelings led him to be prejudice against the kid on trial. At the very end, he becomes visibly upset and give his final verdict, not
Juror 10 is a closed minded older man. He uses a lot of stereotypes to make his decisions on whether or not the accused is really guilty or innocent. Juror 10 yells, “You said it there. I don't want any part of them, believe me” (12 Angry Men). At this point in the play he was using where the accused lived and grew up to influence his choice, he then quickly denied the fact that he is like that with everyone when one
Things get heated between the men discussing the case which leads to juror number 3 saying “ Shut up, you son of a bitch! Let me go, God dammit ! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” This makes it seem that juror three is driven by emotion and not by evidence which makes even more jurors question the verdict of guilty and find reasonable doubt. The next juror who is driven by prejudice and show much bigotry is juror number ten “ I’ll tell you something.
“When I don’t like the answers, I’ll turn it upside down. You figure out what’s wrong with the answer you gave me” (218). Steve and O’Brien had went over what he was going to say prior to the court session, but if he was innocent there would be nothing to worry about. Steve also had flashbacks that the jury doesn’t know about, including where he talks to King about needing money and wanting to rob a bank (50). The jury has no idea that the conversation had happened so they did not have enough information to deliver a verdict of guilty.
Most of the jury was convinced the boy was guilty, but Juror 8 used relaxed tactics to change their minds. One of the last jurors to change his mind was Juror 3. He couldn’t be convinced at first, but eventually, he let Juror 8’s point sink in to add clarity. In addition, because of Juror 8’s civility, many jurors respected him. Juror 9 was one of the first jurors to show respect for Juror 8.
Juror 8 represents the conscience. He stood up for his inner feelings that the accused young boy is innocent. Moreover, when everyone decided that the boy is guilty, he suggested that they should talk about it first. Furthermore, he said that he didn 't
This highlights the fact the jurors intentions weren’t focused to the trial rather that they were focused on self interest in getting out early ‘3rd juror: let's get this over with. We've probably all got things to do.’ The 3rd juror had no regard for the trail at all. He was ‘almost falling asleep’ within the trial of evidence. This evidence suggests that the choices made by jurors were not about the consequences of their decision instead about how they can be somewhere else. Likewise, On The Waterfront showed similar disregard for the consequences of their
“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. One piece of evidence that proves the boy’s innocence is accuracy of the Old man’s testimony. In the play the jurors are arguing over whether or not the man heard the phrase “I’m going to kill you”.