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.
This quote ties in with Twelve Angry Men because Roth is saying that a person can wait for something to happen on its own, or they can get up and do something about it. That is what Juror Eight did; he was the first to vote not guilty, and he stood up for the boy because he did not believe that the kid was completely guilty. His actions were what made the jury see why he voted not guilty and he saved the kid’s life by standing alone and showing his
Prejudice in this book is present and as a jury in the trial, it can bad for the accused in many ways depending on what the crime was committed. A man was murdered and the son of that man is the only one known to be with him that night yet claims to have been elsewhere. The jurors are the only ones to determine this guy’s future to be proven innocent, or falsely accused guilty by the preconceived notion of the juries. Only one jury stood out only because he knew the right for a fair trial is to be upon this man and as for everyone, the only one who hasn’t judged the boy in any way. Juror number three thought he was a slum as if any other slum would be, a criminal living trashy and even think they’re stupid.
With the more corroboration that Juror #8 gave, the more jurors began to believe that the man might not be guilty but instead innocent. In act III of Twelve Angry Men, eventually, after countless discussions, including the substantial amount of evidence that was given, Juror #8 was able to persuade all but one of the jurors. The juror was eventually persuaded into switching his vote from guilty to innocent. Ultimately, the jurors unanimously voted that the man, which was accused of murdering his father,
Heck Tate, tried to appear as neutral as possible in this trial. This scene shows that they tried to do the right thing even though they knew it was unfeasible. Lee indirectly shows the response of other characters even though the characters were not present at the time. This indirect characterization also happens later, as Atticus talks about the jury during the trial. Even though all the adults knew the outcome of the trial “there was one fellow who took considerable wearing down- [...] the Cunninghams?’[...] ‘One minute they’re tryin’ to kill him and the next they’re tryin’ to turn him loose” (222).
Juror are randomly chosen citizens brought in to watch and interpret the case, and break it down and decide whether the defendant is guilty or not. Reginald Rose´s 12 Angry Men was written after while watching real murder trial it inspired him to reveal the positives and negatives of Jury deliberations. While bench trial have strong merits, trial by Jury is more effective for many reasons including,the diversity and variety of backgrounds the jurors bring, the increase chance of discovering the truth, as well as, the fact that Jurors are usually more caring then a Judge who may be calloused from previous experiences is why trial by Jury is the fairest way to decide a criminal case. A significant advantage trial by jury offer is the diversity and variety in backgrounds the Jurors. While the Jurors were discussing the stab wound Juror Five presents the relevant the point with his jurors saying, ¨ You don 't hold this of knife that way.
To have the ability to acquire and address compassion to others, have the willingness to think outside the box, while having confidence in yourself while standing up for the right thing are some major points Kill a Mockingbird and 12 Angry Men show us as readers and viewers. To Kill a Mockingbird and 12 Angry Men, show men who were able to use their attribute to show compassion for others, their eagerness to think outside the box, while having self-assurance the entire time. To let the readers to pick up, they are willing to do whatever it takes to bring across the legitimate element of concern. Atticus and Juror 8 show compassion through the way they treat others with the respect they deserve. On page 101 Atticus said, "But remember this, no matter how bitter things get, they 're still our friends and this is still our home."
Several feature films of the 1950’s showcase a variety of war and criminal justice themes, specifically 12 Angry Men directed by Sidney Lumet. Released in 1957, the film focuses on a contentious case, where twelve diverse jurors must collaborate and determine the fate of the defendant. With seemingly substantial evidence, viewers are taken into the jury room, where all but one juror are quick to return a guilty verdict. Although a unanimous finding is required, juror number eight, played by Henry Fonda, questions the evidence, unable to return a verdict without further examination of the documentations and testimonies. Insisting the jury take additional time to analyze reasonable doubt within the evidence, Henry Fonda utilizes critical thinking and reasoning skills to depict through the case.
In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose twelve jurors in a court have to try to decide If a boy is guilty or innocent in the charge of murdering his father. With this we get to see many personalities within all the jurors making them all extermenley different voices being heard the the courtroom. For this assignment we created shapes showing off the personalonalities for three jurors, the twelfth, eighth and third jurors as they all have they different and distinguishable personalities. While juror eight is logical and tries to examine all the evidence thoroughly, juror three is brash and goes against his personal pregidef.nces, strongly sharing all of them to the other jurors. Juror twelve was the one I had watched in the movie, he didn 't
Juror number three the only member who believe that the young man was not getting a fair trial with that, during the initial round of voting cast a not guilty verdict. With the use of rounds and dyads he encouraged members to discuss the case clearly and objectively examining pieces of evidences used in court. Though other jurors were not his favor however, he remained adamant that the case be combed thoroughly. I believe that juror number eight personal characteristics and logical reasoning allowed him to bring the other members of the jury to his level and change their mindset, thinking and decision-making process ruling in favor of a unanimous 12-0 not guilty verdict. I believe that the members of the jury did work as team because there was a task and purpose to be accomplished.