In “Twelve Angry Men” juror 3’s strong mind and prejudice causes him to label the defendant and judge him before ever knowing the facts in the case. Because juror 3 has such strong opinions he isn’t afraid to say what he believes it causes problems. In the novel antagonist enlightens the other jurors on him and his son situation after his son punched him in the face, he makes the comment “I haven’t seen him in two years. Rotten kid.” By juror 3 making this comment he's letting people know that he thinks kids are rotten and have no respect for their parents that have does everything for them. This makes him hateful and hostile towards younger boys. In the beginning of act 1 juror 3 says he grew up calling his father sir, which was a sign of respect, then later in the text he brings up statement of what the man who lived below the boy and his father who heard his say he was going to kill his father; the father was known for putting his hands on the son, juror 3 says “the kid said he was going to kill him and he did kill him.” (37; act 1) with juror 3 thinking that young boys are trouble, and also knowing that the suspect and the victim had problems in their relationship people would say that this gave the boy a motive to kill his father, juror 3 has set in his mind that from knowing the young boys history and where he grew up that he could potentially kill someone. …show more content…
At the end of act two juror 8 want juror 3 to say his argument on why he thinks the kid is guilty, he restates the statement given by the two neighbors who testified. When he proceeded with his argument he kinda got emotional specifically when he brought up the son stabbing his own father “the phrase was “i’m gonna kill you.” That’s what he
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
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.
Deeper into the play Juror Three is enraged because the defendant killed his dad and he personally related. Deep down Juror Three wanted the defendant to be convicted as guilty due to how Juror Three felt about the falling out with his son; he wanted his son to pay for leaving. Juror Three held this grudge until the end of the drama where Juror Eight states, “It’s not your boy. He’s somebody else.” (Rose, pg 74).
Juror #2 finds it “interesting that he’d find a knife exactly like the one the boy bought”(24). Afterwards, the 8th Juror suggests that the old man, one of the witnesses, lied because of the point Juror #3 tried to make. Juror #3 says, that the old man “[ran ] to his door and [saw ] the kid tearing down the stairs fifteen seconds after the killing”(42). Juror #8 then suggests that the old man could not have done that because of his stroke.
After watching 12 Angry Men, I was very inspired by juror 8 ' argument techniques. His eye contact, body language, tone, the persuasive techniques he used like induction, pathos, ethos and logos should be studied and analyzed in a very detailed, precise way. These factors were strong enough to change 11 angry men 's mind and to vote not guilty, even juror 3 who is the most stubborn. 12 Angry Men 's message toward individuals and the society as a whole is to think once and twice before judging, how to have a successful, convincing argument and most importantly, it encourage everyone to stand up for your opinion. One of the reasons why everyone should speak up is sometimes other people are thinking the same way, but they are not brave enough to express their opinion.
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 foreman also has some prejudice at the beginning of the case. He brings up another case that is similar to the one they are doing.
Many people, if asked what they would prefer, would prefer to read the book instead of watching the movie. It could be because the movie will always leave some parts from the story out. It seems like directors of the movie always leave out parts from the book, only incorporating the important parts from the story. Some also say that they prefer to leave the descriptions of things in the book up to their imagination. Also, when you are reading the book, you get to read the main characters point of view on things.
While 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.
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.
The 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
This 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.
Juror 8 is the most significant persuader is the entire jury. He is the only person who believes the boy is not guilty. He makes several points that justify his reasoning. The first major point he makes is the switchblade knife. During the trial the prosecution assumed that that knife was one of a kind and no other person could have a knife like that.
Juror Ten announces his intentions very early in the play. He speaks loudly and forcefully from the beginning, clearly showing his racism and prejudice towards the boy. Juror 10 quickly votes guilty and asserts that the defendant cannot be believed because “they’re born liars”. Additionally, he claims that the “kids who crawl outa those places are real trash.”
Based on the evidence gathered from the case everyone agrees the boy is innocent except one man, juror three. He eventually breaks down and consequently tells the truth. The viewers can tell that this movie/play is full of emotions. Each of these emotions can be described as something more than what comes to the eye.
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.
“The children who come out of slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society” (Rose 318). Juror 3 was being biased in the play because his son hit or abused him like how the boy is being tried for stabbing or abusing his father. “When he was fifteen he hit me in the face” (Rose 317). Other times in real life that people could be biased is they have