People act upon what they think. Within “12 Angry Men”, all of the jurors have an opinion but some voice their more than others. One juror in particular, Juror Ten, voices his opinion about the boy in question. Repeatedly throughout the play, Juror Ten makes many thoughtless and hurtful comments about a certain kind of people. It is clear that Juror Ten’s uncompromising belief that the accused is guilty is because of his dislike for the boy’s race.
The jurors in Twelve Angry Men also had to deal with this problem. Juror number 3 had a son who have not talked to in years because he was so tough on him when he was younger. This juror had no trouble believing that the boy killed his father because he thinks his son could have killed him. Juror number 11 was an immigrant who believed in the American Justice system with all his heart. He wanted to make sure that the boy had a fair trial because he believed that was the American way, his experiences in his own country were very unfair to people of different races, religions and
Violent!” (Twelve Angry Men). He is inconsiderate, not listening to anyone other than himself. He is stubborn and sharp. Therefore, Juror 10 would best be symbolized by a triangle. The thick, black border symbolizes that he hides behind a veil of racism and prejudice.
The jury must reach its verdict by considering only the evidence introduced in court and the directions of the judge.” Functions and duties of a juror. The movie twelve angry men set the scene of a typical murder trial of a young man who supposedly murdered his father. Jurors are selected from various backgrounds, cultures and professions. Twelve angry men showed the diversity of people ranging from bankers, poker player, parent and those raised in the not so sophisticated lifestyle of the ghettos. Those men were bestowed the opportunity to deliberate on the fate of this eighteen-year-old man.
The act of Juror 8 standing against the majority of the other jurors about the case, voting not guilty, allows the jurors to thoroughly dissect the case, understanding it fully and thoughtfully before making their decision of guilty or not guilty. Without this, the boy would have been given an unfair trial, and possibly had been prosecuted wrongly for a crime he didn’t do. The play wouldn’t have been able to continue without this, because the jurors would simply convict him as guilty and the boy would be put in jail. This play is a perfect example of how standing up to the majority is prevalent and
Juror 8 is a natural leader, and one by one he persuades the other jurors to accept his arguments through persistence, supposing the evidence and suggesting that there are possible explanations to the witness stories and evidence given for the murder case. Rose uses Juror 8 to exemplify that there are many who take the aspects of justice seriously and can decide on fair verdicts. He says that he cannot “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”, demonstrating the ethical qualities that some of humanity possesses. He is also able to assert the views of intolerance and also comprehends that “prejudice obscures the truth”. Therefore, through the playwright’s description of this character and his positive qualities, Rose is able to convey that humanity may possess certain attributes that may be corrupt to society, they have positive characteristics that contribute to accomplishing an unbiased and sincere
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 movie is the best example of minority influence where in the earlier stage only one juror no. 8 says defendant is not guilty but in the end of the movie we see that he is able to influence all the jurors in a very logical manner which I am going to point out later so that all the jurors lastly says the defendant is not guilty. Minority influence is more likely to occur if the point of view of the minority is consistent, flexible, and appealing to the majority. The juror no. 8 doesn’t know defendant is guilty or not guilty but he has only doubt in his mind which he trying to clear during the entire film and with which he also able to clear the views of other
In May 1924, two boys, Nathan Leopold Jr. and Richard Loeb, sought to commit the perfect crime: kidnapping and murdering their 14-year-old neighbor, Robert Franks. However, instead of executing the perfect crime, they are apprehended the following day and sentenced to receive the death penalty. Their parents hire a defense attorney to represent Leopold and Loeb in court named Clarence Darrow, who made one of the most influential and well-known speeches against the death penalty: “A Plea for Mercy.” Darrow utilizes historical references, logical and emotional appeals, anaphora, and persona, to convince the court not to employ the death penalty for Leopold and Loebs’ case. Darrow succeeds by showing relationships between past wars and contemporary
The jury had a murder case that dealt with a nineteen-year-old man that was accused of murdering his father from several people. If the man was found guilty of the crime, then he would be sentenced to death. Each one of the jurors came to their own decision deciding whether or not the defendant was guilty of the crime or not. The rising action in the play is that only Juror #8 found the defendant innocent and all the other jurors found him guilty of the crime. In order for the jury to make a decision, they needed a unanimous vote.