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.
People 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.
All, but one juror voted that the boy was guilty. For this reason, all the jurors had to sit down in the court room and discuss into more detail about the murder case. Having 12 jurors is a faster and easier way than having 1 juror to come to an agreement if the boy is guilty in this murder case. The first juror is the foreman. Outside of the court, he is an assistant football coach.
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 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
I believe that the 8th juror is the most interesting juror of the twelve because in a way he is the perfect juror and represents the boy’s good luck. Number 8 plays a very important role in the play because he is the one juror that voted not guilty and stood up to the others, in his own words: “It’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first”. So, he is the one that triggered the chain of events that broke down the evidence and without him the boy would have surely died. His job is an architect and to be an architect you need to be both artistic (imaginative, thoughtful) and mathematical
Also, if the jury decides that the boy is guilty, he would have to face the electric chair. The jury consisted of 12 Men, young and old, from different backgrounds and cultures, with different social position, different thinking but one thing in common- none of them had
Eleven men found the boy guilt, while juror eight was the only man that wanted to review the case over again to make sure the jury was making the correct decision. All eleven jurymen were set on the boy being guilty and were trying to convince juror eight that he was guilty. Juror eight held his ground and convince the men to look over all of the evidence. Juror eight brought out the files, acted out different situations and the murder scene. The men went back and forth for hours fighting about whether or not the boy was guilt of killing his father Slowly one by one the jurors changed their mind from guilty to not guilty.
In 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