Juror Eight And Juror Three In John Steinbeck's 12 Angry Men

502 Words3 Pages

In the play 12 Angry Men, a murder case is being reviewed by a jury. This jury must decide if a kid who killed his father is guilty or not. Two jurors that were on opposing sides for most of the play was Juror Eight and Juror Three. The reason they were on opposing sides was because Juror Three believed the kid was guilty, while Juror Eight believed there was not enough evidence to convict him. Most of the jurors wanted to settle on having reasonable doubt, so another jury could be called in. Reasonable doubt is when there’s not enough evidence or if the jury is not completely sure a person is guilty. When reasonable doubt is present in a case, it means they cannot convict the person because they are not sure if they are truly guilty. Juror Eight would not settle for this and continued to try and change the minds of the jury, so an innocent kid would not be convicted. …show more content…

Juror Eight was the only man from the beginning of the play who stuck by his belief that the kid was innocent. He stood alone in front of the other jurors and defended himself from the other jurors, such as Juror Three and Juror Ten. Jurors Three and Ten were adamant that the kid was guilty and refused to listen to Juror Eight’s “nonsense”. Juror Eight’s evidence and speeches persuaded all the other jurors to change their vote from not guilty, except for Juror Three. The only reason Juror Three had it out for the kid was because he himself had some issues with kids respecting their parents, and specifically their fathers. His own son hasn’t seen him in years and he want to take out his anger on whoever he can, which just so happens to be the kid on trial. Juror Three’s feelings led him to be prejudice against the kid on trial. At the very end, he becomes visibly upset and give his final verdict, not

Show More
Open Document