Juror 8 Character Analysis

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

After watching 12 Angry Men, I was very inspired by juror 8 ' argument techniques. His eye contact, body language, tone, the persuasive techniques he used like induction, pathos, ethos and logos should be studied and analyzed in a very detailed, precise way. These factors were strong enough to change 11 angry men 's mind and to vote not guilty, even juror 3 who is the most stubborn. 12 Angry Men 's message toward individuals and the society as a whole is to think once and twice before judging, how to have a successful, convincing argument and most importantly, it encourage everyone to stand up for your opinion. One of the reasons why everyone should speak up is sometimes other people are thinking the same way, but they are not brave enough to express their opinion. What if juror 8 did not have the courage to freely state his opinion? The innocent boy would be dead for doing absolutely nothing.

People tend to base characteristics of people pretty quickly; likewise, their personalities. Most people base their opinions on stereotypes. Reginald Rose and his play “12 Angry Men” demonstrate how people are quick to judge other people based on looks. In the movie all twelve jurors must decide if a young boy is guilty or innocent. At the beginning of the movie/play-write, only one juror, juror eight, decides the boy is innocent. Based on the evidence gathered from the case everyone agrees the boy is innocent except one man, juror three. He eventually breaks down and consequently tells the truth. The viewers can tell that this movie/play is full of emotions. Each of these emotions can be described as something more than what comes to the eye.

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. Even if they all didn’t agree on certain things, they were all able to have some contribution on coming together to decide that the boy is not guilty. This story is a great example of how completely different people can work together to eventually decide on something no matter how big are small

Juror 2: He is an introvert who works as a bank clerk. Meek and high in agreeableness, he cannot hold an opinion of his own and adopts the opinion of the last person who has spoken. He seemed happy when he managed to help during the timing of recreating the ‘old man walking’ scene.

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

The play 12 Angry Men is about a jury of twelve men that are given the task of deciding the fate, guilty or not guilty, of a young boy accused of murdering his father. The theme of standing up against the majority is very prevalent in this story because of the decisions some of the jurors make throughout the play. Juror 8 makes the decision to vote not guilty, he is the one and only juror in this play that decides to vote not guilty for the boy in the beginning. The other eleven jurors decide to vote guilty because of the evidence that they have been presented with. 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

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

After viewing the film 12 Angry Men, this movie shows a jury of men trying to decide the verdict in the case of a teenager accused of murdering his father. A simple task for the jury deciding on if the teenager is guilty or not guilty turns into irrational decision-making. The 1957 film is an immense example of how groupthink can

In these two critically-acclaimed movies, government ignorance is explored in distinct ways. In 12 Angry Men, a jury of 12 men is sent to determine the fate of an 18-year-old slum-raised Latino boy accused of stabbing his father to death. A guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. In Beasts of the Southern Wild we are taken on an adventure alongside Hushpuppy, an African-American six-year old, who lives on a poverty-stricken island called the Bathtub and whose father’s tough love prepares her for a harsh world. As completely opposite as these two perspectives seem, each represents opposing sides of social injustice and ultimately deliver similar messages.

Usually others opinions cause the justice system to be worse than it has to be. A danger of relying on twelve individuals in a court system means that there are some that would be biased about the case. Juror 5 was biased for relating this case to himself because he was from the slums and so was the boy on trial. “The children who come out of slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society” (Rose 318). Juror 3 was being biased in the play because his son hit or abused him like how the boy is being tried for stabbing or abusing his father. “When he was fifteen he hit me in the face” (Rose 317). Other times in real life that people could be biased is they have

If it wasn 't for Juror #8, I don 't know what terrible consequences would have been. Owing to his insistence, the case was discussed and everyone began to pay attention to the details of the case, testimony, evidence, and witness actions. In the end, twelve people overcame prejudice, ceased the conflict, and made the right decision.

The film “Twelve Angry Men” involves a lot of logical fallacies, some of which are quite prominent and provocative. Like for eg. The fallacies which involve racism and bigotry of Juror #10 and the anger revealed which manifests into personal anguish by Juror#3. The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar

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

Davis, the first juror to vote not guilty, ignored his emotional attachment to the first-degree murder case and thought purely around the evidence the boy and the witnesses provided to the court. The other jurors said, “eleven men and you think he’s guilty, nobody has to think about it twice except you.” They said this in accordance to system 1 and original response to the stories told in the court. Otherwise, not once did Mr. Davis refer to system 1 through laziness. Mr. Davis spent the entirety of that hot day in a room with eleven other men, spending every second he had on convincing them of the potential error that could have been made in convicting the young boy. He was able to retain confidence and doubt uniformly, because through his analytical thought processing, he was able to pull unreliable facts from the witnesses stories that prove the witnesses may not have even seen the boy commit the murder. Mr. Davis was meticulous while analyzing the entirety of the case, ranging from the eyesight of the witness to the angle of the knife. He used precision and facts in order to persuade the rest of the jurors that not all evidence is