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.
As the movie went on, all the jurors had explained why they had a bad view on children from the slums. Juror number three is the one who is always thinking the worst of the boys from the slums. In the end of the movie he has a picture of a boy, his son, who is from the slums and makes him upset so he is trying to take out his anger toward his own boy on the boy on trial. All the other jurors except number eight, have a bad view of the slums because of the prominence of crime in the areas of the slums and they don 't see all the kids from the slums because they just see the bad kids that come from the areas. The jurors may not know all the children from this area so they will have a lack of knowledge.
It is clear that Juror Ten’s uncompromising belief that the accused is guilty is because of his dislike for the boy’s race. His prejudice is clear when he says that “I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say” when speaking about the boy (16). Juror Ten’s prejudice causes him to disregard all of the facts that are presented to him by Juror Eight that can prove that the accused is not guilty. Juror 10 allows his prejudice to blind him of the truth.
Their decisions are extremely biased initially either due to the background of the boy or what each of them holds as morally correct i.e. the sheer act in question of a boy killing his father is unthought-of no matter what the situation. One of the central characters in the movie is that of the Jury Foreman, played by Martin Balsam. His role is vital because he is responsible for guiding the whole discussion among the rest of the jurors and organizing an efficient system to ensure everyone’s point of view is taken into account. He comes across as authoritative on multiple occasions when he tries to silence any brewing arguments.
So do you. The children who come out of slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society.’ Juror 4 gives this very controversial statement. It involves presumption of the juror that might be from his personal experience or social influence. He has assumed that people born in slums are criminals but actually there are people who are not criminals. Fallacy 6: ‘The boy lied and you know it’ - This statement by juror 3 includes a fallacy since he forcefully asserts a statement to make it true which may or may not be true.
LaBeet comes across as a charismatic freedom fighter who you almost root for. He was even able to get a detective admitting to torturous interview methods on camera. He did well to explain the race and independence situation in VI and America, showing sound-bites from real people with real views at that time. I do not know if his intention was to make the audience sympathize with LaBeet, but after the hijacking scene and by the end of the movie, I felt that while he made bad choices, he definitely made points that I found agreeable. He was dubbed the “Most Polite Hijacker”, so maybe he just is
It is not known if the boy is actually guilty or innocent, it will always remain hidden with the boy. It is about whether the jury has a reasonable doubt about his guilt, and this is how the whole debate started when the jury eight had a reasonable doubt about the whole incident of the boy killing his father and the witnesses. Juror eight who entered in the trial with an open mind finally managed to convince the others to do so. The movie illustrates that everything is not what it appears to be. The movie also reflects the prevailing sexism of America in the 1950’s.
The man walked in the jury room a flashy man and thinking he had better things to do than sit on a jury and he walked out the exact same way. That is why the shape stays the same color, it fades on the inside because the only thing that changed was the view on the case presented. The rectangle in Figure 1 is the smallest shape because Juror 7 didn’t influence the opinions of many people. Juror 7 did speak at times and he incorporated in heated discussions, but he didn't change anything major in the storyline. Juror 7 and and 3 are placed on the left side, but 7 is placed higher than 3.
He is a stockbroker, somebody who studies and obsesses over the smallest details. He has a great momery and recalls the smallest details from court proceedings. He acts as a perfect counterpart to juror number 8, two people who are both trying to do good. They just come to different conclusions of what good is. Juror number 4 isn’t biased against the young man.
He is definitely suicidal, as evident through the unveiling of the rubber pipe, testimony that he has been trying to kill himself through his car crashes, and his final appearance on stage ending in death. He believes that he is important in the job that he no longer holds, and he never was very important in his occupation at all. He is also unaware of the fact that he has an issue, denying that he has ever seen the rubber pipe and ignoring the fact that he needs financial help. His decreasing ability to drive and remain focused on the road is also synonymous with psychosis. Biff's behavior causes him to believe that his son is spiting him, although all he is trying to do is help his poor father.