What is the duty of jurors? Jurors fulfil a very important function in the legal system. In a criminal trial, they are charged with the responsibility of deciding whether, on the facts of the case, a person is guilty or not guilty of the offence for which he or she has been charged. However, in the play Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose indicates how jurors’ perceptions of the case are changed by their personal prejudices, such as life experience and emotion. When a person is selected to be a juror, he should be confident with the decision that he makes and do not be a follower. After the first vote in act one of the play, there is eleven to one, eleven guilty, and one not guilty. Juror Eight asks why Juror Two thinks the boy is guilty. …show more content…
In act one of Twelve Angry Men, Juror Seven is a loud and flashy man who has more important things to do than to sit on a jury. Especially he says, “Right. This better be fast. I’ve got tickets to (pg. 13).” The word “fast” shows that he wants to get out the room as soon as possible. He pays more attention on the show that he wants watch than the case. Also, in his mind, he expects that everyone has the same thought as he because he thinks this case is easy based on the proven evidence and testimonies. On another hand, “fast” also shows that Juror Seven does not care about if the boy is guilty. He only cares about himself and his time, and he does not think logically before he votes. Also, when twelve jurors discuss the facts, Juror Seven brings up something. He says, “Look at the kid’s record. He stole a car. He’s been arrested for mugging. I think they said he stabbed somebody in the arm,” and “he was picked up for knife fighting. At fifteen, he was in reform school.” Those two sentences show that he believes the boy is guilty based on the bad record of the kid. He also believes that once the boy becomes a bad boy, he never becomes a good boy again. Juror Seven is adding his emotion to the discussion. He is not able to see things clearly, and it also shows how ignorant he is. Juror Seven’s ignorance does not only destroy the boy’s …show more content…
21)” This sentence describes how angry Juror Three is in this case. “He hit me in the face” is a key that makes Juror Three votes guilty because in the case the boy is suspected he murders his father by putting a knife into his chest. In other words, Juror Three very hates young people hurt their parents. As parents, they obviously love their kids so much, even sometimes they hurt them from physically or mentally, but it is still a way that shows their love. That’s why if their kids against them, they will be so upset, this is also a reason Juror Three says he hates tough kids. In this case, he never thinks about the boy is not guilty. He wants the boy to receive some punishments which maybe help the boy to create a good behavior. Also at the end of the play, Juror Three says, “I don’t care whether I’m alone or not! I have a right,” and “A guilty man’s going to be walking on the streets. A murderer!! He’s got to die! Stay with me!” Those sentences are said before the final vote, which is eleven vote not guilty, and one votes guilty after they test all evidence. Those sentences also show that Juror Three is very emotional because the boy makes him remember the bad relationship between his kid and him. That’s why even though many people change their minds after all discussion, he still goes for guilty because he has already been sure the boy is guilty since the beginning. Fortunately, he maybe realizes that he cannot treat this case with his anger. That does not help the
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
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.
‘Twelve Angry Men’ written by Reginald Rose, is based on the story of a jury who have to come together to determine the fate of a young boy accused to have murdered his own father. Initially, eleven of the jurors vote not guilty with one of the juror being uncertain of the evidence put before them. As the men argue over the different pieces of evidence, the insanity begins to make sense and the decision becomes clearer as they vote several other times. Rose creates drama and tension in the jury room, clearly exploring through the many issues of prejudice, integrity and compassion, in gaining true justice towards the accused victim. These aspects have been revealed through three character who are Juror 10, Juror 8 and Juror 3.
Juror 2: He is an introvert who works as a bank clerk. Meek and high in agreeableness, he cannot hold an opinion of his own and adopts the opinion of the last person who has spoken. He seemed happy when he managed to help during the timing of recreating the ‘old man walking’ scene.
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.
When asked why he voted not guilty, juror eight stated “Look, this boy has been kicked around all his life. You know---living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. He spent a year in and a half in an orphanage while his father served a jail term for forgery. That’s not a very good head start. He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years.
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.
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.
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.
People tend to base characteristics of people pretty quickly; likewise, their personalities. Most people base their opinions on stereotypes. Reginald Rose and his play “12 Angry Men” demonstrate how people are quick to judge other people based on looks. In the movie all twelve jurors must decide if a young boy is guilty or innocent. At the beginning of the movie/play-write, only one juror, juror eight, decides the boy is innocent.
In the play 12 Angry Men, a murder case is being reviewed by a jury. This jury must decide if a kid who killed his father is guilty or not. Two jurors that were on opposing sides for most of the play was Juror Eight and Juror Three. The reason they were on opposing sides was because Juror Three believed the kid was guilty, while Juror Eight believed there was not enough evidence to convict him. Most of the jurors wanted to settle on having reasonable doubt, so another jury could be called in.
Though juror 3 has been adamant on the guilt of the young boy it is safe to say that this case meant more to him because the relationship with his son is similar to the relationship between the boy and the father. Since his personal vendetta causes him to forcefully accuse the boy of murder it leaves the jury 11-1 in favor of not guilty. Since carefully reviewing the movie it becomes very prevalent that there has not been enough substantial evidence to convict the boy of murder. Furthermore, with the usage of group think all of the men, accept juror 3 are able to put their pride aside and vote what they truly believe the verdict should be, which is not guilty. Though, one of the more pragmatic points in the film happens after juror 3 becomes infuriated after realizing that all of the men are voting not guilty.
The 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?
The boy should deserve a careful discussion from jurors before face the result of the trial and he emphases that there were only two people who saw the whole process of the murder stabbing the boy’s dad Juror 8 questioned the weapon which claim to kill father, which is a normal switchblade that even juror 8 owns one himself Juror 8 told other jurors to revote, and if this time 11 jurors still think that the boy is guilty, then he will go with them and say that the boy is guilty too One person voted “Not Guilty” at the second