Juror 10 Hate Speech
The conflict derives from Juror 10’s hate speech against the people of the slums, which induced negative emotions in the other jurors that led them to silent protest , turning away from Juror 10, not wanting to continue the discussion with him.
Juror 10 depicts the people of the slums as dangerous,violent, and vicious which ultimately lead to him concluding that, “they don’t need any big reason to kill someone either.” The other jurors, appalled by his hate speech, fell silent, stood up, and turned away from him. They simply wanted him to keep quiet and stop his hate speech as it was making them uncomfortable. At the same time, Juror 10 was appalled by the impudent reactions of the other jurors as he view himself as giving a zealous justification. Disparaged
…show more content…
As seen from the beginning of the discussion, the foreman has always been trying to conform to the rules and to keep the conversation organised.It was his responsibility to maintain the harmony in the discussion. However, as seen from the scene whereby Juror 10 got out of his seat and the foreman decided to confront him about it,he displayed a competing style by being highly assertive even till the point of telling Juror 10 to take his seat. He was eventually told that he was doing a beautiful job by Juror 12 then told to return to his seat. The foreman ultimately went back to his seat resigned to his plight and this was when the discussion continued and the foreman just voiced out “Boy,I don’t care what you do.” This highlights that there was a shift of conflict management style towards avoidance. In general the foreman generally frequents the resolving strategy whereby he prefers to get rid of the conflict.The subdominant conflict strategy of avoidance occurs at rare instances such as the last point where he just wants nothing to do with the conflict and washes his hands of
Self Interest In On The Waterfront And Twelve Angry Men
1225 Words | 5 PagesIn Twelve Angry Men the direction of the jury room was pushed by self interest to leave. ‘7th Juror: goddamn waste of time. 10th Juror: yeah, can you imagine, sitting there for three days just for this.’
12 Angry Men Assessment: 12 Angry Men
755 Words | 4 PagesDaja McLaurin Benton TA: Yiwen Dai Communications: 250 1 April, 2016 12 Angry Men Assessment After viewing the movie 12 Angry Men the group was able to implement the ideas of group think immediately during the start of the movie. Since the men briefly established a relationship from the time of witnessing the trial to start of deliberation n the empty room and reaching a unanimous decision, they found that all of the men initially achieved a verdict of guilty accept for juror 8. After this surprising decision the men began to show their true colors and distinguish how one may believe something and another juror may believe another. The group takes time in pleading individual opinions while deciding on the guilt or innocence of a young boy
Character Differences In 12 Angry Men
1133 Words | 5 PagesThe Film 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, is a film written about the American jury system. In the film, as in any part in life, emotions are a tricky thing; This is especially true for the 3rd, 7th, and 8th jurors. One of the main themes in the film questions that of the emotions of the jurors. That question is: Is it possible to keep personal prejudice and emotions out of a trial? Is this even a good or bad thing?
Juror Three In Twelve Angry Men
186 Words | 1 PagesAs 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.
Peer Pressure In Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men
1247 Words | 5 PagesA juror that was very vulnerable to the pressure was Juror 2. He lacks diction, and seems weak in his beliefs. When the men are asked to share their opinions he says, “Well, it’s hard to put into words. I just-think he’s guilty” (Rose 14). Contrary to the second juror, the third jurors resents being pressured by his peers.
Ethos, Pathos, Pathos And Logos In 12 Angry Men
1964 Words | 8 Pages"Don 't judge a book by its cover" is a famous saying that some of us heard it before and some of us experienced it. 12 jurors were experiencing this quote when they gathered to decide whether a young boy is guilty by killing his father or not. Juror 2 stated, "Well, anyway, I think he was guilty" (6). Juror 2 represent most of us, as sometimes we judge from what we hear and not from what we see. The 12 jurors are from various backgrounds and each one has a distinctive personality.
Ethos Pathos In 12 Angry Men
997 Words | 4 PagesIn 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
Examples Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men
915 Words | 4 PagesHis 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 3 Character Analysis Essay
980 Words | 4 PagesForeman (Juror 1): He is an assistant football coach at a High School. Elected as the foreman of the jury, he has the responsibility to keep the jury process organized. Although he is not particularly bright, he is dogged. Initially, he struggled to keep up with his authority. Eventually, he managed to weight to his authority as the foreman as well as his opinions.
Standing Up To The Majority In 12 Angry Men
1191 Words | 5 PagesWilliam Jennings Bryan once said, “Never be afraid to stand with the minority when the minority is right, for the minority which is right will one day be the majority”. Standing up to the majority is vital, it gives individuals the opportunity to express their individual, unique opinions and experiences. It allows the majority to become open to diversity and the cultures that come along with it. This has been shown throughout history, Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have a Dream” speech, is an instance of this. This speech encapsulated all that he was fighting for, for the African American minority in America and their rights.
12 Angry Men Rhetorical Analysis
1186 Words | 5 PagesTwelve Angry Men is in many ways a love letter to the American legal justice system. We find here eleven men, swayed to conclusions by prejudices, past experience, and short-sightedness, challenged by one man who holds himself and his peers to a higher standard of justice, demanding that this marginalized member of society be given his due process. We see the jurors struggle between the two, seemingly conflicting, purposes of a jury, to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. It proves, however, that the logic of the American trial-by-jury system does work.
Argumentative Essay On 12 Angry Men
549 Words | 3 PagesThis 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.
12 Angry Men Groupthink Analysis
842 Words | 4 PagesDr. Irving Janis’ symptoms of groupthink in the film such as “belief in the inherent morality of the group” which Janis states,” members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions” (Psysr.org, 2018). They believe what they are saying is right and don’t think about what comes along with the decision made. Closed-mindedness is another obvious symptom seen in the jury. Juror 10 uses the phrase “one of them” and frequently divides society into the words “us” and “them” using the phrase to point out stereotypes. Individuals on the jury often justify their views to avoid challenges.
12 Angry Men Analysis
814 Words | 4 PagesJuror 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.”
Examples Of Social Injustice In 12 Angry Men
803 Words | 4 PagesThis process continues throughout the course of the movie, and each juror’s biases is slowly revealed. Earlier through the movie, it is already justifiable to label juror 10 as a bigoted racist as he reveals strong racist tendencies against the defendant, stating his only reason for voting guilty is the boy’s ethnicity and background. . Another interesting aspect of this 1957 film is the “reverse prejudice” portrayed by juror
More about Juror 10 Hate Speech
Self Interest In On The Waterfront And Twelve Angry Men
1225 Words | 5 Pages12 Angry Men Assessment: 12 Angry Men
755 Words | 4 PagesCharacter Differences In 12 Angry Men
1133 Words | 5 PagesJuror Three In Twelve Angry Men
186 Words | 1 PagesPeer Pressure In Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men
1247 Words | 5 PagesEthos, Pathos, Pathos And Logos In 12 Angry Men
1964 Words | 8 PagesEthos Pathos In 12 Angry Men
997 Words | 4 PagesExamples Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men
915 Words | 4 PagesJuror 3 Character Analysis Essay
980 Words | 4 PagesStanding Up To The Majority In 12 Angry Men
1191 Words | 5 Pages12 Angry Men Rhetorical Analysis
1186 Words | 5 PagesArgumentative Essay On 12 Angry Men
549 Words | 3 Pages12 Angry Men Groupthink Analysis
842 Words | 4 Pages12 Angry Men Analysis
814 Words | 4 PagesExamples Of Social Injustice In 12 Angry Men
803 Words | 4 Pages