12 Angry Men Rhetorical Analysis

His prejudice is clear when he says that “I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say” when speaking about the boy (16). Juror Ten’s prejudice causes him to disregard all of the facts that are presented to him by Juror Eight that can prove that the accused is not guilty. Juror 10 allows his prejudice to blind him of the truth. That is until he is called out by his fellow jurors.

Juror number 3 went off knowing that they’ll spend some time in the room debating whether the boy was the murderer of his father, along with the other jurors. The way juror number three was displaying in a way was that he was judging the boy since he was in the courtroom and mentioned he looked as guilty as ever, but this preconceived notion goes more into depth with the same juror commenting about his background. When someone has the mind of bias thinking, that person is entitled to only see the flaws of others and not the positive qualities one possess, yet can’t see their own mistakes committed noticed. As this continues, juror eight viewed this case and led some other jurors to think and dramatize the evidence they were given by the testimonies from what they saw. Little by little, the jurors start to change their opinion about the case of the young man and have been supporting juror eight by the facts he has stated in the room, yet juror three still wouldn’t reason correctly and thought the guy should convicted of the

A very similar thing happens in To Kill a Mockingbird, when Bob Ewell accuses Tom Robinson of raping his daughter Mayella, but Atticus proves that it was most likely Bob who did it. Bob Ewell, Mayella’s dad, the person who should be protecting her at all costs. The most common injustice in the novel appears when the kids find the case between Tom Robinson and the Ewell family to be unfair, highly illogical, and racist. When the verdict of guilty is revealed to the town, Jem becomes upset and says, “You just can’t convict a man on evidence like that- you can’t”

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.”

To emphasize, on the same occasion Atticus attempts to explain to his

A group of juror comprising of 12 men from diverse backgrounds began their early deliberations with 11 of ‘guilty’ and 1 of ‘not guilty’ verdicts. Juror 8 portrayed himself as a charismatic and high self-confident architect. Initially, Juror 1 who played the foreman positioned himself as self-appointed leader of the team in which has led his authority to be challenged as his leadership style lacked in drive and weak. In the contrary, Juror 8 is seen as the emergent leader considering his openness to probing conversations while remaining calm. Implying this openness to the present, it has become crucial that a good decision relies on knowledge, experience, thorough analysis and most importantly critical thinking.

This argument could have been justifiable only if the juror has some proofs of the argument to be true. 3) Juror 3: i) He generalized the kids of the new generation to be bad just because he had such one experience from his son. This is Hasty Generalization fallacy. ii)

You don’t have to be like your family, you can be who you want to be. Starting out, Doug is like his brother and likes to be the bad guy. Doug really focused on being bad seeing as he constructed this, “Doug Swieteck once made up a list of 410 ways to get a teacher to hate you,”(1). “I think that things became illegal around number 167,” (1). Doug is known throughout the

The Holocaust seemed like it was ran by heartless soldiers who had no feelings or emotions or guilt whatsoever. In the middle of the book, Wiesel talked about this young boy, also known as a pipel, who was hung in front of everyone because he was accused of messing with the power. (Wiesel 55) At first the boy did not die instantly, he hung, struggling for over a half an hour, and the soldiers just watched. There was not an ounce of remorse in their bodies, they can have at least put in out of his misery, but instead they watched him like they watch the news.

The jurors took literally almost day just bickering and arguing over whether the boy was guilty or not. In act two the jurors were starting to change their mind about their vote on whether or not the boy was guilty or not. That is where they started to kind of come to an agreement. From the beginning of act one juror number eight was always on the boys side, and the other guys always questioned why he thought the boy was innocent. Juror number eight did not have a reason he said “ he’s nineteen years old”.

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

During the trial, Dill is distraught by the way Mr. Gilmer, the prosecutor, speaks to Tom. Dill does not think anyone has the business to talk that way and “that old Mr. Gilmer doin’ him thataway, talking so hateful to him,” (265) made him sick. Mr. Gilmer interrogates questions like “Are you being impudent to me, boy,” (264) and acts toward Tom as if he is an untamed animal being trained and not a full-grown adult. Although Tom Robinson is treated harshly, Jem believes Atticus, the defendant lawyer and their father, has won the case because of the strong evidences presented and the fact that Tom is innocent (279). When the jury pronounce Tom guilty, Jem is exasperated and “his hands were white from gripping the balcony rail, and his shoulder jerked as if each ‘guilty’ was a separate stab between them,” (282).

Atticus alludes the jury to two of the most famous men in the era. When Atticus is saying this to the jury and everyone else he is saying that not everyone will play the role that they are given. Just because Tom Robinson is African-American doesn’t mean that he is bad and will do unlawful things. Another example of allusion is when Atticus is asking Mayella about what Tom Robinson did to her. He says, “It 's not an easy question Miss Mayella, so I 'll try again.

Of course, the eleven men grew frustrated with this and tried to explain to Juror #8 their reasons the young man was guilty. Juror #8 defended his opinion saying he did not say the young man wasn’t guilty, but that he was not sure. He could not imagine going through with a guilty verdict for a young, scared man who was hanging on

Lea Vilna-Santos Mrs. English, 7th September 1st, 2015 The Giver, by: Lois Lowry Log Entry 5: Chapters 9-10: Question 7: In chapters 9-10, Jonas realizes from reading the last rule in his list that allows him to lie, that what if what people say isn’t the truth, despite what everyone in his community learns about the importance of telling the truth. He was even chastised when he exaggerated as a Four. He said that he was starving, but he was only hungry. His teachers made sure he understood that even though it was an unintentional lie, it was still a lie because as long as he lives in their community he will never be starving so they didn’t want him to ever say anything like that again.