I have a right,” and “A guilty man’s going to be walking on the streets. 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.
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.
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. In the story, 12 angry men, some of these men immediately assumed that the kid was guilty of murder.
The juror had arguments through out the act. Because of the fact of his views in the client. If it was true that the teenager murder his father, it was the jurors job to prove it. Juror 8 on the act question other jurors it didn’t make sense to just let a person die if he wasn’t fully guilty. The witnesses weren’t really a help an old lady who wore glasses said that she saw the guy stabbed his own dad.
“Humans see what they want to see.” said Rick Riordan, in The Lightning Thief, and he was right. In the book Monster, by Walter Dean Myers, a young boy is called a monster after accused of murder and theft. No one, not even himself fully believes in him, so he calls himself monster. Everyone is looking to pin a crime on someone and call it justice, make even themselves believe they are the monsters they are not. In this book everyone makes this innocent young man seem like a monster he is not.
You would imagine that the United States’ judicial system would be free of bias when it comes to the trials presented. This is not the case in Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men. Diegesis for Rose’s play consists of twelve men on a jury who have to deliberate whether to convict a sixteen-year-old boy who is suspected of killing his father. The complete opposite of what is desired is portrayed in the play, as it is human nature to pass at least somewhat judgement in order to come to a conclusion, but is gone to an extreme with the biases. Rose utilizes characterization and the archetypal representation of light vs. darkness to convey that prejudice will always exist and affect decisions that humans make within the play of Twelve Angry Men, via the organic unity of character backgrounds and the character’s interactions between one another.
In 12 Angry Men, the author creates a very long and challenging process for the jurors to decide on an unanimous verdict. At the beginning of the play, Juror Eight is the only one that votes for not guilty. Because he does not know what he thinks, he asks that they review all the facts and testimonies. When Juror Eight
When he does not believe the truth, the consequence later in the play is that he punishes himself as he promised the townspeople. He promises everyone that he will punish the murderer so he can save the town. They will also wear “the badge of shame, the brand of infamy on the very skin” (Episode 1). This is another way that Oedipus promises to punish the killer (himself) and he did this by blinding himself before going to the mountains to punish himself. Oedipus denies the truth and faces the consequences later on in the play.
“You are a dead man if I have to ask you again.”(Sophocles 87) is another prime example of Oedipus’s impudence. Oedipus is very close to figuring out who the killer is, and it shows his inability to show restraint. These quotes also show that Oedipus is willing to kill in order to find out the truth. This is when the audience should question his morality and justification. He was doing whatever he wanted, and no one stopped him.
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.” Other jurors would make small remarks about simply wanting to leave and were focusing on their discomfort instead
Despite this, all of the criminals I have worked with, I have never seen a more guiltier man walk into that courtroom. Do you believe that after this trial and if you decide to acquit him, that this man will not get worse? The thing about this boy is that he is tough and angry, like a puppy who has been kicked too many times. Before you know it, that puppy decides to bite the next person who tries to kick it. In the end, he will still be malicious and he could possibly murder someone else the way he murdered his father.
12 Angry Men, begins with the scene of a courtroom where the decision of a murder trial was being taken. In the case, the son was accused of killing his father and that was what was asked by the Jury of the 12 men to deliberate upon. All of them had to come to one single decision and give the verdict, i.e. every member should be having the same opinion in the end. They had to prove whether the boy was guilty or not guilty of murder.
After Jonas has been learning his whole life that lying is bad then being told he can lie all he wants is a big change for him. Maybe everything he knows is a lie. So, in all the moment where reads his last rule that lets him lie makes him wonder if all the adults have lied to him his entire life even though he’s been taught all these years to do the opposite because it was such an integral part of precise speech. I
Saillant explains that there are those, including prosecutors in that case who absolutely agree that the murder was pre-meditated based on a hate crime, but didn’t consider the other factors; Mclnerney was being humiliated daily by King in front of all his friends. Mclnerney was being bullied by King. The time came when Mclnerney was at a breaking point and did what he thought was the only way to stop King from bullying him. Scott wiper, one of Mclnerney’s attorney said, “Someone like Brandon, who was barely 14 and had no juvenile record, should have gone before a juvenile judge, who would look at certain factors to determine he is suitable for rehabilitation.”(Saillant). It wasn’t fair that Mclnerney, who had no juvenile record, was tried in an adult court.
Twelve Angry Men was about a group of jurors struggle to come with a verdict for a murder case. In the beginning, all but one tenacious juror believed that the eighteen year old boy was guilty of murdering his father.The main problem of the story was that the jurors verdict had to be unanimous. Through the process of trying to get each other to change positions, the jurors face many arguments and disagreements. The jurors personalities clash multiple times because each one has a different view on things and are adamant in their decisions. Well, there were only two very adamant people throughout the whole story and that was juror eight and juror three.