More handpicked essays just for you.
The negative effects among peer pressure
A jury and her peers character analysis
A jury and her peers character analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
No matter the motives of any juror, each can be traced back to Juror Eight, and the fact that he was brave enough to stand against the crowd. In the end, every juror eventually reached the verdict of not guilty, but there was still a very long process to get there, and many people that produced the answers for the others. Juror Eight is the only reason anyone in this play made a single sound, and he may have eventually been brought down if Juror Nine hadn’t changed his vote to support him. They worked as a team, with Juror Five soon joining in, Juror Eight had an incredible impact on everyone in that room, and he is the reason a boy who was most likely innocent was set
In the play 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, Juror #3 makes two contradictory comments that actually help juror #8 prove that there may be grounds for reasonable doubt in this case. The first contradictory comment that Juror #3 makes is about the notorious phrase exclaimed throughout the centuries, a phrase that should make the hairs on your neck stand up in fright, however, it does not. This particular phrase is mentioned during a verbal brawl between Juror #3 and Juror #8, “I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him” (43)! It is apparent that Juror #3 does not actually intend to kill Juror #8 which contradicts what Juror #3 claimed earlier when he stated that telling someone that you want to kill them is a threat to be taken to heart and serves as legitimate
In 12 Angry Men, Juror Three’s past negative experiences with his kid affect how he acts during the trial. In Act I, Juror Three mentions how he had a bad relationship with his kid. He talks about how much he hates kids, specifically his. In this scene, Juror Three is letting out his anger on this case. Juror Eight also says “Perhaps you’d like to pull the switch” (42).
Humanity prejudges others for many various reasons whether it is based on race, gender, culture, sexuality, etc. We sometimes forejudge others without even knowing it just because we grew up thinking that its’ “okay” or “normal”. It’s not okay but society has that impact on us all and we feel as though we can do it without facing consequences. Based on what I’ve read in "C.P. Ellis" by Studs Terkel and "Veiled Intentions" by Maysan Haydar, both authors believe that prejudice is something a person is taught, but they both experienced prejudice differently;
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.
Then the mood shifts in Act 2, where Juror 9’s personality starts to unfold more. He shares key points in the evidence and is able to voice his opinions more powerfully. This generates a change in his vote to not guilty and he is the first out of eleven jurors to do so.. One of his key points is that the neighboring old man's testimony in court doesn’t add up with the murder. As he and a couple of the jurors including number eight uncover this lie from the old man, other jurors like number three and ten, disagree with their statements saying he wouldn’t lie.
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.
Although 3 does change his mind in the end, he is the last to change so he is the leader for the guilty side. In the end, the reader can look at figure 1. and take away the fact that juror 8 is the main character, and that jurors 3 and 8 causes the main conflict in the
Throughout the play, the jurors are faced with the temptation to conform to the opinions of others, particularly the dominant figure of Juror 8. However, Juror 8's determination to consider all the evidence before
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.
No human being is truly capable of putting their preconceptions aside to judge a situation without bias. Justice will never be just if it can be influenced by prejudice. When making judgments, we should be objective and not let prejudice blind our hearts. Only in this way can we be responsible for ourselves and
“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
A group of juror comprising of 12 men from diverse backgrounds began their early deliberations with 11 of ‘guilty’ and 1 of ‘not guilty’ verdicts. Juror 8 portrayed himself as a charismatic and high self-confident architect. Initially, Juror 1 who played the foreman positioned himself as self-appointed leader of the team in which has led his authority to be challenged as his leadership style lacked in drive and weak. In the contrary, Juror 8 is seen as the emergent leader considering his openness to probing conversations while remaining calm. Implying this openness to the present, it has become crucial that a good decision relies on knowledge, experience, thorough analysis and most importantly critical thinking.
Juror Ten announces his intentions very early in the play. He speaks loudly and forcefully from the beginning, clearly showing his racism and prejudice towards the boy. Juror 10 quickly votes guilty and asserts that the defendant cannot be believed because “they’re born liars”. Additionally, he claims that the “kids who crawl outa those places are real trash.”
In my experience, what Martin Luther King Jr. calls “thinking intensively and critically” is very different from what my high school teachers called “critical thinking”, most especially by the way Dr. King links intelligence and learning to the development of character, that is, growth as a person. Too often in my past, teachers mentioned critical thinking only as a mental activity of seeing through stereotypes, evaluating both sides of issues and understanding and accepting differences. As worthwhile as these are, I have found that high level thinking without having a more enlightened character is simply inadequate. That was a recent, very positive experience with two very nice people of different faiths. As much as we had been taught in class about prejudice, the recent terrorists attacks across the world bred a good deal of ill-will in
