Juror 3 Character Analysis Essay

Things get heated between the men discussing the case which leads to juror number 3 saying “ Shut up, you son of a bitch! Let me go, God dammit ! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” This makes it seem that juror three is driven by emotion and not by evidence which makes even more jurors question the verdict of guilty and find reasonable doubt. The next juror who is driven by prejudice and show much bigotry is juror number ten “ I’ll tell you something. The crime is being committed right in this room… I Don't understand...Look you know THOSE PEOPLE lie...they don't know what the truth is...human life doesn't mean as much to them as it does to us… Look these people are drinking and fighting all the time and if somebody gets killed...they don't care…” .Juror number ten by the author is labeled as the bigot and for obvious reasons. He only cares about his own opinion and thinks of himself as better than everyone else. He sees this kid as a piece of trash which the world would be better off without. Only convicting this boy by his racial background and terrible

A juror that was very vulnerable to the pressure was Juror 2. He lacks diction, and seems weak in his beliefs. When the men are asked to share their opinions he says, “Well, it’s hard to put into words. I just-think he’s guilty” (Rose 14). Contrary to the second juror, the third jurors resents being pressured by his peers. While 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. He seems in a way relatable to William Golding’s character, Simon, in The Lord of The Flies. Simon is seen as a sort of christ like figure, and while Juror 8 isn't anywhere near that level, he does seem to portray a sort of thoughtfulness and compassion that Simon does as well. All of the jurors are affected by peer pressure in different ways, and how they are effected is important to the

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. 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. That is until he is called out by his fellow jurors. Throughout 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. He says the defendant accused of murder was let off and “eight years later they found out that he’d actually done it, anyway” (12). Prejudice clouds a person’s judgement and does not allow the individual to see all the facts. It only allows them to

The way we see and understand things may not be the same for everyone. Personally, I feel like I come across as a very diffident person, however, I am told otherwise-I am a strong, confident person. Similarly, it can be observed in the movie, that Juror 3 was determined that the boy was guilty. Juror 3 implied evidence that was already established whereas Juror 8 provided logic in context with the evidence supplied. Juror 3 abominates the thought of a child killing his own father, “Well 18 is old enough. He stabbed his own father four inches into the chest. They proved it a dozen different ways in court.Do you want me to list them?”. The reason for his bias against the defendant is because of his constraint relationship with his son, who he

When he was sixteen we had a battle. He hit me in the face. He's big, y'know. I haven't seen him in two years. Rotten kid. You work your heart out...[He breaks off. He has said more than he intended. He is embarrassed]” (Rose 17-18). Here, we see that the members of the jury are only human, with past situations that can create a prejudice. Similarly, Juror Five has a perspective on the case, only it is parallel to the Third Juror, he sates, “I’ve lived in a slum all my life. I nurse that trash in Harlem Hospital six nights a week. I used to play in a backyard that was filled with garbage. Maybe it still smells on me” (Rose 18). By saying this, the third Juror admits that there is more to the kid accused, after all, he grew up in a very similar situation. This brings new insight to the table, a different perspective that not many of the jurors can relate to. While the Seventh Juror does not relate to the situation, he feels differently about the case, “This better be fast. I got tickets to a

While both end up voting the same way, their approaches throughout the majority of the film are vastly different. To start, the third juror is much more factual, stating in the film, “Okay let’s get the facts… and he ran to the door of his apartment and the boy!”(12 Angry Men) This immediately shows the viewer that Juror 3 will base the majority of his argument in fact. In contrast, Juror 8 feels that communicating with the other jurors and piecing together their views is a better way to solve the case. This is shown when Juror 8 says, “There were eleven votes guilty. It’s not so easy for me to send a boy off to die without talking about it first.”(12 Angry Men) In the first difference, Juror 7 falls with Juror 3, believing much more of the facts than discussion. The second difference with the approach of the two jurors is in their persuasions techniques. As for Juror 3, he prefers loud, yelling, and calling people out and telling them they are wrong. This is why Juror 3 is represented with a lightning bolt. On the outside, he is obviously quick striking, hot, and loud. He can obviously be seen in the film yelling and attacking every character. On the other hand, Juror 8 is more tranquil, and cool, and will let anyone speak. He is often seen asking other jurors to elaborate on their opinion, not just tell them they are wrong. The cool blue, soft circle shows his willingness to listen, and not have a

"Don 't judge a book by its cover" is a famous saying that some of us heard it before and some of us experienced it. 12 jurors were experiencing this quote when they gathered to decide whether a young boy is guilty by killing his father or not. Juror 2 stated, "Well, anyway, I think he was guilty" (6). Juror 2 represent most of us, as sometimes we judge from what we hear and not from what we see. The 12 jurors are from various backgrounds and each one has a distinctive personality. What is worth our attention in this movie is how in the beginning they are trying to convince each other to vote guilty. 11 juror voted guilty and only one voted not guilty. Their judgments were based upon either their past personal experience which created their thoughts and behavior or upon facts. Juror 8 represents the conscience. He stood up for his inner feelings that the accused young boy is innocent. Moreover, when everyone decided that the boy is guilty, he suggested that they should talk about it first. Furthermore, he said that he didn 't

8th 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. Many of the jurors use logos, logic and reasoning, to lay out the evidence in a rational and concrete manner to convince him. An example is when 4th Juror lays out all of the evidence of the knife to convince 8th Juror with seven, linear, factual points. The reader and audience is meant to connect a sense of ethos, reliability or competence, to 8th Juror, as he is the only one who doesn’t, at first, seem to be clouded by ignorance, racism, disinterest, or any other characteristic that might cloud

This very excitable juror is the last to change his vote, and while his stubbornness could be seen as being based more on emotions than facts, he starts off with his little notebook with facts of the case and tries to insist that he has no personal feelings on the matter. His forceful personality is used to getting its own way and being in

lead to making the best decision. Juror 8 requested the group to discuss about the situation first to understand and make everybody clear on the decision to be made. Juror 8 had shown his empathy to the boy and he was putting himself in the boy’s role by saying that:-

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

Early on he drops small and subtle remarks that indicates he’s bias. These alone don’t amount to much, but as the film progresses and as he becomes more emotional, his remarks begin to escalate. Until the end of the film when he outs himself for what he truly is. This elicits disgust from the other jurors, most notably from juror number 4 who also firmly votes guilty. Juror number 4 is the one who is able to remain the most level-headed and emotionless throughout the trial. Everything he does is base on logic. He isn’t biased in one way or another. He just wants make sure the right outcome is reached. 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. In fact, once the evidence points to inconclusive, he changes his vote. The last juror to vote guilty based solely on logic and evidence. Up to this point, the story focuses on the muder, going through the evidence and trying

At first the architect waited his turn and passively listened, but near the end he took over the role as the orchestrator of the discussion. The architect is self-controlled and driven to give the 19-year-old boy a fair trial. He accepts responsibility and steps in as a leader of the discussion by seeking the opinions of the more reserved jury members. With the more aggressive jurors, the architect challenges them without losing his temper and he stands up for the jury members who are verbally attacked. The architect connects on a personal level with the members of the jury by looking them intently in the eyes and through subtle touches on their arms which is affective in allowing him to not seem overly assertive. He rose to the challenge and recognized the needs of the different jurors which allowed him to effectively influence a large group of people with very different personalities and values. The architect fits the characteristics of an authentic leader because he knows who he is as a person and he is completely candid about his belief that all humans deserve a fair, unbiased

Jury 3 was a major contributor to the plot of the story, and constantly added outrage. He regularly brought unnecessary remarks and accusations to the jury room. His remarks and comments usually didn 't pursued the other 11 jury’s, but the criticism sure made things more hectic and frustrating. Jury 3 was for sure the antagonist in the story, with out him there wouldn 't of been

He has no sympathy and only cares about the evidence of the case. On the website Study.com i found “When Juror Eight feels sorry for the teenage defendant, who is accused of murdering his father, because of the bad lot this boy got in life, Juror Four starts fixing his hair as he is uninterested in anything except evidence. He then says, 'We 're not here to go into the reasons why slums are breeding grounds for criminals; they are. I know it. So do you. The children who come out of slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society.” He believes like the rest that slums are breeding grounds for