A murderer!! He’s got to die! Stay with me!” Those sentences are said before the final vote, which is eleven vote not guilty, and one votes guilty after they test all evidence. Those sentences also show that Juror Three is very emotional because the boy makes him remember the bad relationship between his kid and him.
12 angry men Have you ever given a opinion and made your final decision without evidence to prove if your right or wrong? Victims could be innocent in a case and be spending time in prison for something that they didn’t do. Evidence can show specific details on a case and change people’s mind about the victim. It’s easy for people to make up their minds about any situation and immediately assume someone who was there with him or her.
He’s got to burn. We’re letting him slip through our fingers”, and why he has an intense passion to convict the defendant of murdering his father (Rose
12 Angry Men Jury Attitude Development The Juror's attitudes in “Twelve Angry Men” changes from Act one to Act three by caring more about the outcome of the case and less about going home. In the beginning, all of the jurors, save but one, Juror eight, voted guilty without ever caring about if the evidence presented was factual. Peer pressure seemed to be a large portion of this, seeing that a few of the jurors raised their hands hesitantly when asked to publicly vote for guilty. Juror seven voiced how he felt about this case, saying that the decision “better be [made] fast,” simply because he “got tickets to the Seven Year Itch.”
In the novel The Terrorist’s Son, Sayyid Nosair, Zack Ebrahim father lied about the horrific crime he committed; he shot Rabbi Kahane. The lawyers and Sayyid Nosair claimed that it was the Rabbi Kahane own people that murdered him because of money woes. As stated in my last journal, I do not believe crap Zak father has to say. I am surprised Zak didn’t event put two and two together.
Throughout the play 12 Angry Men, jurors use reasonable doubt; previous knowledge or opinion of a topic, to influence the opinions of other jurors. Personal insight used by Juror eight, juror 9, Juror 5, Juror 8, and Juror 2 influence other jurors by changing their opinions and their reasoning behind that vote. For Instance, Juror eight exhibits how the old man 's testimony is not valid. He demonstrates the old man walking from his bedroom, down the hall, and down the steps, just in time to witness the boy stab his father.
In Sophocles` play, Antigone, he shows a story of a crazed man who lets pride takes over his actions causing the deaths of his loved ones. This essay will discuss Haimon, King Creon`s son, through statements that Sophocles himself wrote and inferences of his perspective. During the story Haimon does major actions such as; plea for his fiancée, commits suicide and even cast death upon King Creon. I believe that Haimon plead for Antigone`s life for more than one reason. He pleads for her because she was his fiancée and also because he heard the rumors the citizens passed around about King Creon.
On the other hand, Juror 11, despite being an “immigrant”, has full faith in the American Judicial System and allows himself to take decisions logically rather than emotionally. He explains other jurors that they have no “right to play with the boy’s life”. Juror 4 passionately tries to influence the jury into “[talking] facts” whereas he himself is obscured by the truth that he himself is giving opinions. Rose conveys to the audience that people who take decisions based on emotion are not always accurate.
Tell me, who are you going to trust more? The man on trial who is trying to avoid being put on the chair, and will lie or will do anything to save his life? Or the elderly who have no such reason or intent to lie to you? These two witnesses should be enough to persuade you that this man is guilty and that he murdered his
In the play 12 Angry Men the 8th juror has a positive impact by standing up for what he believes in. The eighth juror voted not guilty because he couldn't sentence a boy to death without deliberating long and hard. As The eighth juror said on pg. 13 “ It's not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die within talking about it first.” The boy he refers to is 16 years old and the eighth juror couldn't let a boy who is technically a minor die, he feels that it is his civic duty to talk about it.
Imagine this, you are on jury for murder. If convicted, you are sentenced the death penalty. The only thing that is debating whether you get to live is the decision of twelve men. Our justice system seeks many potential dangers. Stereotypes, perception of inconvenience, and difference in the jurors point of view are dangers within our justice system.
In the 1950’s the American court primarily depended on evidence and witnesses to prove someone guilty in any case. Being accused of something is a feeling that no one would want to experience. “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a play in which twelve jurors try to interpret a case that revolves around a 16-year-old boy who is accused of murdering his father. Throughout this whole play the jurors are responsible for deciding the destiny of the boy. Rose portrays the contrasting opinions of Juror Three and Juror Eight, who contradict on their perspectives of solicitude, justice, and humanity.
Reginald Rose’s play 12 Angry Men was written to highlight flaws in the judicial system of the United States of America and to discuss the issue of social conformity vs. individuality. Reginald Rose is trying to make a point that the judicial system of the United States is not always reliable when it comes to deciding justice. The author is also displaying to the audience a scenario where social conformity and individuality are opposing each other. The play 12 Angry Men allows the audience to view an ordinary jury discussion about the life of a young boy being accused of murder.