12 Angry Men Juror 8 Analysis

1451 Words6 Pages
12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, is a play that takes place only in one room of a courthouse. Where this drama may lack in any attention to the setting, it makes up for it with its elaborately corroborated characters who are jurors making a decision on whether or not to charge a boy with murder hereafter sentencing him to the chair. As shown through the play, most of the jurors appear dissatisfied with the situation, a common nuisance with the public, having to work jury duty. However, one juror, referred to as juror eight, is appalled by such actions being carried out by his fellow men and decides to stand up for this kid and prove his innocence. This entails much backlash by the others. Most of which came from juror three, who without much…show more content…
Willing to send someone to die so easily, yet stick to his claim without any moment of reconsideration. In figure l, this trait was embodied by having the shape resemble a piece of paper or a scroll. His quick decision making and unwilling to go in depth with the evidence would only fit a figure of this presence, for he only goes by the simple information that had been written down. He would even use the slightest pieces of unconventional records to support his claim that the defendant was guilty. Even a blatant, “I’ll kill you!” supposedly exclaimed by the boy towards his father was enough for the him to make his decision. This man was shown to be short tempered throughout the play. As more jurors began taking into account the evidence and proving the accused innocence, juror 3 became louder and far more boisterous. He wouldn’t even let the summer heat halt his anger, anger which soon consumed him and brought out the hypocrisy of his claim by hissing through his teeth to another juror, “Let me go. I’ll kill him. I’ll kill him!” (12 Angry Men) This ultimately causes both 3 and the others to realize how easily such statements can be said. He also showed signs of stubbornness, a thick skin of red anger, as shown by the model. Towards the end of the play the reader begins to realize that there is a side of him that he tried desperately to hide. Once that thick skin is broken, then the inside is truly revealed as a light, calm blue that fades into an even lighter tone, showing how once the surface has been damaged, everything falls apart. This sudden meltdown had to do with his own experience with his son. Due to this he had a resentment towards children remarking how, “You’re right. It’s the kids. The way they are---you know? They don’t listen,” This was also a part of his evidence towards proving the boy’s guilt, for he thought he knew what it was to deal with an “ungrateful” child. This resulted in the juror tearing
Open Document