Essay On Juror 11 In 12 Angry Men
Character Analysis of Juror #11 In the film 12 Angry Men, Juror #11 is seen as a man with a sense of justice, fairness, and logic. Even though he does not play a major role in the film, his character cannot be ignored. He played an essential role in the defense for the defendant’s innocence and promoted fairness during the jury’s debate on whether or not the defendant was guilty. Whenever he spoke during the debate, his comments and questions were not provocative like the others. Unlike the majority of the other jurors, he displayed respect and sincere interest in the opinions of others.
Juror #11’s comments, behaviors, responses, attitude, and emotional reactions are well mannered, better than some of the other jurors. He was not timid but
…show more content…
Unlike the other jurors, he understood that those rights should not be taken for granted. In the film, Juror #11 explained how it was great that citizens are appointed by the court to judge the guilt or innocence of their peers. He goes even further by scolding Juror #7 for his lack of emphasis as to why he voted ‘Not Guilty’. The dialogue with Juror #7 represents how he feels about his sense of justice. Juror #11: “He's right. That's not an answer. What kind of a man are you? You have sat here and voted ‘guilty’ with everyone else because there are some baseball tickets burning a hole in your pocket? And now you've changed your vote because you say you're sick of all the talking here?” Juror #7: “Now listen, buddy - !” Juror #11: “Who tells you that you have the right like this to play with a man's life? Don't you care...” Juror #7: “Now wait a minute! You can't talk like that to me - !” Juror #11: “I can talk like that to you! If you want to vote ‘not guilty’, then do it because you are convinced the man is not guilty, not because you've ‘had enough’. And if you think he is guilty, then vote that way! Or don't you have the guts to do what you think is right?” (“Juror 11 (Character)”). His comment also shows his support for fairness. Even though he was a supporter of the defendant’s innocence, he was upset at how Juror #7 took his rights to judge his peers for
12 Angry Men Assessment: 12 Angry Men
755 Words | 4 PagesThough 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.
Jurors Are Not Guilty In Twelve Angry Men
644 Words | 3 PagesDavis, the first juror to vote not guilty, ignored his emotional attachment to the first-degree murder case and thought purely around the evidence the boy and the witnesses provided to the court. The other jurors said, “eleven men and you think he’s guilty, nobody has to think about it twice except you.” They said this in accordance to system 1 and original response to the stories told in the court. Otherwise, not once did Mr. Davis refer to system 1 through laziness. Mr. Davis spent the entirety of that hot day in a room with eleven other men, spending every second he had on convincing them of the potential error that could have been made in convicting the young boy.
Twelve Angry Men: Comparing The Book And Film
726 Words | 3 PagesWhen 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.
Juror Three In Twelve Angry Men
186 Words | 1 PagesI believe people do have a tendency to allow their prejudices to direct their decisions. People have their prejudices, feel they are right and go along with that feeling. A great example of this is Juror Three in Twelve Angry Men. He believed the boy murdered his father because he felt he did it.
Peer Pressure In Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men
1247 Words | 5 PagesWhile 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.
Ethos, Pathos, Pathos And Logos In 12 Angry Men
1964 Words | 8 PagesAfter watching 12 Angry Men, I was very inspired by juror 8 ' argument techniques. His eye contact, body language, tone, the persuasive techniques he used like induction, pathos, ethos and logos should be studied and analyzed in a very detailed, precise way. These factors were strong enough to change 11 angry men 's mind and to vote not guilty, even juror 3 who is the most stubborn. 12 Angry Men 's message toward individuals and the society as a whole is to think once and twice before judging, how to have a successful, convincing argument and most importantly, it encourage everyone to stand up for your opinion. One of the reasons why everyone should speak up is sometimes other people are thinking the same way, but they are not brave enough to express their opinion.
Examples Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men
915 Words | 4 PagesThroughout the whole play, Juror Ten remains stubborn in his decision that the defendant is guilty. Yet, at the end the finally sees that there is reasonable doubt (62). Interestingly enough, on the previous page Juror Ten is called out by Juror Four (60). The foreman also has some prejudice at the beginning of the case. He brings up another case that is similar to the one they are doing.
Fallacies In 12 Angry Men
1404 Words | 6 PagesThe script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar
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 Pages8th 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 Eight And Juror Three In John Steinbeck's 12 Angry Men
502 Words | 3 PagesIn 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.
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
The Justice System In Twelve Angry Men
591 Words | 3 PagesTherefore, he tried to make the trial go faster by voting with the side with the most votes. My family in the real world also had to go through inconvenience of the jury duty. My cousin had her first prom and my Aunt got called for jury duty. She couldn’t help her daughter do her hair, makeup, and get pictures. My moms friend also had a conflict with the jury duty.
12 Angry Men Case Study
858 Words | 4 PagesIn a New York City, an 18-year-old male from a slum is on a trial claiming that he is responsible for his father death by stabbing him After both sides has finished their closing argument in the trial, the judge asks the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty or not The judge informs the jury decided the boy is guilty, he will face a death sentence as a result of this trial The jurors went into the private room to discuss about this case. At the first vote, all jurors vote guilty apart from Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), he was the only one who voted “Note Guilty” Juror 8 told other jurors that they should discuss about this case before they put a boy into a death sentence
More about Essay On Juror 11 In 12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men Assessment: 12 Angry Men
755 Words | 4 PagesJurors Are Not Guilty In Twelve Angry Men
644 Words | 3 PagesTwelve Angry Men: Comparing The Book And Film
726 Words | 3 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 PagesExamples Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men
915 Words | 4 PagesFallacies In 12 Angry Men
1404 Words | 6 PagesStanding Up To The Majority In 12 Angry Men
1191 Words | 5 Pages12 Angry Men Rhetorical Analysis
1186 Words | 5 PagesJuror Eight And Juror Three In John Steinbeck's 12 Angry Men
502 Words | 3 Pages12 Angry Men Analysis
814 Words | 4 PagesExamples Of Social Injustice In 12 Angry Men
803 Words | 4 PagesThe Justice System In Twelve Angry Men
591 Words | 3 Pages12 Angry Men Case Study
858 Words | 4 Pages