Essay On Juror 11 In 12 Angry Men

645 Words3 Pages
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
Open Document