ipl-logo

Juror Three In 12 Angry Men

171 Words1 Page

In Twelve Angry Men, the award winning three act drama written by Reginald Rose, each juror is told to reconsider a reasonable doubt in deciding the fate of a young man accused of murdering his own father. With little exception, each juror bring his own personal biases and preconceptions. However, in this rollercoaster of a drama, no other juror stands out as much as Juror Three. Though other jurors may occasionally admit a reasonable doubt, Juror Three is strictly motivated by his superiority complex, impatience, and personal grudges. Juror Three often believes his opinions matter more than others and only appreciates those who agree with him. For example, in the beginning stages of Twelve angry men, Juror three continuously supports Juror

Show More
Related

  • Character Differences In 12 Angry Men

    1133 Words  | 5 Pages

    The Film 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, is a film written about the American jury system. In the film, as in any part in life, emotions are a tricky thing; This is especially true for the 3rd, 7th, and 8th jurors. One of the main themes in the film questions that of the emotions of the jurors. That question is: Is it possible to keep personal prejudice and emotions out of a trial? Is this even a good or bad thing?

    Read More

  • Juror 3 Stubbornness Quotes

    310 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the play "Twelve Angry Men" by Reginald Rose, Juror 3 displays stubbornness as a character trait and it significantly impacts the story. The play follows the jury in a murder case, if the defendant is convicted he will be given the death penalty so it is critical for jurors to be open-minded. Juror 3’s stubbornness is evident when he states, “I don’t care whether I’m alone or not. It’s my right” (71). This quote highlights Juror 3's stubbornness as he refuses to listen to the other jurors and consider their points of view.

    Read More

  • Peer Pressure In Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men

    1247 Words  | 5 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Ethos, Pathos, Pathos And Logos In 12 Angry Men

    1964 Words  | 8 Pages

    "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.

    Read More

  • Examples Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men

    915 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Fallacies In 12 Angry Men

    1404 Words  | 6 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Standing Up To The Majority In 12 Angry Men

    1191 Words  | 5 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Reasonable Doubt In Twelve Angry Men

    1011 Words  | 5 Pages

    Reasonable doubt proves that critical thinking is important when someone’s life is in someone else’s hands. “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, is a play about twelve jury members who must deliberate and decide the fate of a man who is accused of murdering his father. These twelve men must unanimously agree on whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty without reasonable doubt. Just like the jurors, the readers of this play have not witnessed the crime that took place before the trial started. Everyone, but the writer, is in the dark about who committed the crime.

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Internal Conflict Essay

    583 Words  | 3 Pages

    In 12 Angry Men the juror’s have internal conflict because of their past

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Analysis

    814 Words  | 4 Pages

    ‘Twelve Angry Men’ written by Reginald Rose, is based on the story of a jury who have to come together to determine the fate of a young boy accused to have murdered his own father. Initially, eleven of the jurors vote not guilty with one of the juror being uncertain of the evidence put before them. As the men argue over the different pieces of evidence, the insanity begins to make sense and the decision becomes clearer as they vote several other times. Rose creates drama and tension in the jury room, clearly exploring through the many issues of prejudice, integrity and compassion, in gaining true justice towards the accused victim. These aspects have been revealed through three character who are Juror 10, Juror 8 and Juror 3.

    Read More

  • Examples Of Social Injustice In 12 Angry Men

    803 Words  | 4 Pages

    In 12 Angry Men, the movie begins in a courtroom where the case is being discussed by the judge, who seems fairly uninterested. The jurors are then instructed to enter the jury room to begin their deliberations. They take a vote and all but juror 8 vote guilty. The jurors react violently to the dissenting vote but ultimately decide to go around the table in hope of convincing the 8th juror.

    Read More

  • The American Judicial System In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

    1169 Words  | 5 Pages

    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”.

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Fallacies Analysis

    1019 Words  | 5 Pages

    Title: Fallacies in the movie ’12 Angry Men’ Name: Prerna Singh Roll No.: 13110082 Word Count: The movie ’12 Angry Men’ beautifully presents a number of critical thinking aspects. Fallacies are depicted with excellent examples. Here is a list of the fallacies observed. Every juror had his own set of prejudices which gave way to so many fallacies to come up.

    Read More

  • The Justice System In Twelve Angry Men

    591 Words  | 3 Pages

    The justice system that relies on twelve individuals reaching a life-or-death decision has many complications and dangers. The play Twelve Angry Men, by Reiginald Rose, illustrates the dangers of a justice system that relies on twelve people reaching a life-or-death decision because people are biased, they think of a jury system as an inconvenience, and many people aren’t as intelligent as others. The first reason why Reiginald illustrates dangers is because people can be biased or they can stereotype the defendant. The Jurors in Twelve Angry Men relate to this because a few of them were biased and several of them stereotyped the defendant for being from the slums. The defendant in this play was a 19 year old kid from the slums.

    Read More

  • Social Psychology In The Movie Twelve Angry Men

    721 Words  | 3 Pages

    This theory is practicable inside of the juror’s decisional processes of the “Twelve Angry Men.” Conformity is described from the beginnings of the film. When the jurors cast their initial vote, doubt is clear in many of the jurors whom vote guilty. This inhibition might be commented as weak belief shaked by the guilty majority’s influence. Additionally, though the movie is not provide any references about the timelines of decision this is a relevant factor presumably affecting the “Twelve Angry Men,” and should be considered as a potential element in creating social

    Read More

More about Juror Three In 12 Angry Men

Open Document