12.” (12 Angry Men). He thinks the only pieces of evidence are the witnesses because they said they saw the killing even though there was flaws within their testimony. After further investigation, he agrees the boy is not guilty. Then, juror number three persuades number twelve
This will display he will avoid the penalty of the law to his convenience when he had followed it for his entire time in Athens, which will further many people’s belief of his bad character. However, the Athenian justice system was flawed. It is not right for Socrates to accept his death as his punishment when many people did not comply with the requirements of the jury to uphold the law because they decided to convict an innocent man to his death with no strong evidence needed. The laws are established with the sole purpose to establish justice. Instead of establishing justice, many people in the trial let their personal judgments of Socrates establish him as the criminal when he was innocent.
First of all, there is a difference between justice and truth. No one can know for sure whether the boy killed his father or not. The jury's duty is to look into evidence and trial facts and to see whether they lead to guilt completely. If there is a reasonable doubt that evidence may not lead to complete guilt, then no jury can say that the defendant is guilty. Secondly, everybody has the right to a fair trial, regardless of his or her economic or family background, or his or her past.
Individuals on the jury often justify their views to avoid challenges. Juror 3 was intimidating the other jurors, trying to convince them to stick with the guilty verdict. Juror 2 was guilty of self-censorship agreeing with the rest of the group to influence his decisions. The whole group began with the illusion of unanimity. According to Janis illusion of unanimity is, “the majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.” (Psysr.org,
Steve uses rhetorical questions to imply that he knows what he did wrong, but does not want to admit to the crime. He writes his part in the crime casually, which further conveys the conflict in his mind. He depends on others to bring clarity to his mind, such as saying, “What did I do?”. After the session at court was finished, Steve was insecure about what Ms. O’Brien, his lawyer, thinks of him. He
But when it comes to reaching a verdict in the case, #4 is completely unsympathetic, saying, the boy's entire story was flimsy and he also claimed that he was at the movies. He couldn't even remember what pictures he saw and that it was little ridiculous. While he might seem cold and harsh, Juror #4 is actually not all that bad. For one thing, he's totally willing to be swayed by evidence. He tosses aside some of the early arguments about the defendant's innocence not because he's prejudiced, but because he doesn't believe
Socrates did not have visual evidence, only the accusers that wanted the “wise” man convicted. The 21st Century Judicial system is very different than the Athenian period Judicial period. Before a suspect is taken into custody, there must be evidence to prove the suspect is guilty. Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) is usually the primary key to getting someone charged and then convicted. Socrates DNA (the evidence from Meletus and his accusers) was the judgements of his charges from the jury and the social class that he is
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
In The movie 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose he uses interesting techniques to show what the behind the scenes view of a juror room looks like. The 12 jurors are determining whether or not an accused inner-city teen is guilty or not-guilty for the death of his father. The reader can figure out the true meaning of the character’s by using shapes to analyze them and at the same time the reader may be able to dig deeper then text to figure out who these characters really are. The characters #5,#7, and #8 are the same, but different in many ways. While watching the movie Juror #5 had many strong moments.
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.