Peer Pressure In Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men

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.

Throughout the whole play, Juror Ten remains stubborn in his decision that the defendant is guilty. Yet, at the end the finally sees that there is reasonable doubt (62). Interestingly enough, on the previous page Juror Ten is called out by Juror Four (60). The foreman also has some prejudice at the beginning of the case. He brings up another case that is similar to the one they are doing.

Juror number 3 went off knowing that they’ll spend some time in the room debating whether the boy was the murderer of his father, along with the other jurors. The way juror number three was displaying in a way was that he was judging the boy since he was in the courtroom and mentioned he looked as guilty as ever, but this preconceived notion goes more into depth with the same juror commenting about his background. When someone has the mind of bias thinking, that person is entitled to only see the flaws of others and not the positive qualities one possess, yet can’t see their own mistakes committed noticed. As this continues, juror eight viewed this case and led some other jurors to think and dramatize the evidence they were given by the testimonies from what they saw. Little by little, the jurors start to change their opinion about the case of the young man and have been supporting juror eight by the facts he has stated in the room, yet juror three still wouldn’t reason correctly and thought the guy should convicted of the

(White 339) All of these strange feelings contradicting each other inside him cause him to have a lot of problems growing and changing. He is unable to grow as a person for most of the story after due to his own inner struggles, but he does change his mind about and regret many things, like when he killed Gareth and Gaheris, “’You couldn't help it.' ' I could have helped it.' He was in his customary religious misery. '

Proctor doubts his goodness and constantly seeks forgiveness. This is evident when he says "I cannot mount the giblet like a saint, my honesty is broke elizebeth, I am no good man. When Proctor finally has the bravery to go to court, despite the risk of exposure, he breaks down under the pressure of Abigails power and denounces god in frustration. As a result of this he is arrested. In act four, Proctor's integrity outweighs his will to live.

Juror 3 was intimidating the other jurors, trying to convince them to stick with the guilty verdict. Juror 2 was guilty of self-censorship agreeing with the rest of the group to influence his decisions. The whole group began with the illusion of unanimity. According to Janis illusion of unanimity is, “the majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.” (Psysr.org,

Throughout his essay, Staples is able to make the audience understand what he has to deal with as a black man. Staples does this by using words and phrases such as, “...her flight made me feel like an accomplice in tyranny” and “... I was indistinguishable from the muggers who occasionally seeped into the area…” (542). By writing and describing how he (Staples) feels, the audience is able to get an inside look into how black men are treated and better understand why society’s teachings, play a vital role in how we see each other. Staples’ powerful writing also allows the reader to take a step back and see how as a society, people make judgements on others based on appearance alone.

Response to Senator McCarthy’s “Enemies From Within Speech” With anti-communism being the dominant political issue during the Cold War, hysteria and paranoia spread throughout the minds of Americans. The “Enemies From Within Speech” delivered at Wheeling, West Virginia in 1950 by Senator Joseph McCarthy focused on worsening that national fear. Senator McCarthy used ethos, metaphor, and hyperbole to create the notion of disloyalty within the federal government. In order to persuade the American public in a convincing way, Senator McCarthy appeals to their ethics.

“How dared you think that your mind held greater wisdom than the minds of your brothers?” (Chapter 7, paragraph 14) said the members of the council. They did not want to believe what was in front of them because it was created on his own. As they continue to go on about their disappointment they bashed him with words, “to hold yourself as one alone and with the thoughts of the one and not of the many?”. (chapter 7, paragraph 15)

Juror 3: He is an impulsive, humourless and extremely opinionated character whose own conflict with his own son caused him to take the case personally. Being a Controller (intuitor/judger temperament) with low emotional stability and high in competitiveness, he displayed his ‘bull’ tendency when other Jurors do not share the same opinions as him. This can be seen during the many times in the movie where he happens to have a conflict with Juror 8 over the difference in their view. This relationship of theirs is denoted by a zigzag line in the sociogram. His Type A personality clashes with majority of the Jurors as he uses

It can be difficult for a man to find someone willing to believe that they’re a victim of abuse. The prevailing image of “man as aggressor” or “men are stronger” leads to the common belief that he’s somehow “earned” his abuse by provoking his abuser. Other times, they fear – with justification – being ignored or mocked for “allowing” their partner to hurt them. In the popular portrayal of the henpecked husband, the man is frequently shown as being a weakling who’s incapable of standing up to his wife and thus “earns” his abuse as punishment for being so weak and

Even though he is skeptical of people he considers phony, such as Marty who lies about seeing a movie star, his negativity and judgement of others usually goes a lot farther than what is considered normal. For example, he doesn’t get serious in relationships with others, because he always seems to find flaws in everyone. Another example is when Holden’s history teacher at Pencey, Mr. Spencer, wants to understand why he refuses to put in any effort. Spencer feels bad about failing Holden and reaches out to him, trying to connect with him and possibly influence him positively. However, Holden gets upset and starts talking poorly of him once he hears this, and later excuses himself with a lie he made up to leave, showing both his self-defence mechanism and his skepticism towards people he liked.

The main priority is to discuss the defendant’s innocence or guilt. By keeping the subject of discussion on the boy, Juror Eight, has an easier time convincing the rest of the jury that he is not guilty of the murder of his father. Juror Three, the main antagonist of Twelve Angry Men, doesn’t possess the perseverance that Juror Eight does. Juror Three doesn’t have a reasonable cause, which in turn weakens his argument. His bottled up emotions over his son become a problem later in the play when

During the trial, Dill is distraught by the way Mr. Gilmer, the prosecutor, speaks to Tom. Dill does not think anyone has the business to talk that way and “that old Mr. Gilmer doin’ him thataway, talking so hateful to him,” (265) made him sick. Mr. Gilmer interrogates questions like “Are you being impudent to me, boy,” (264) and acts toward Tom as if he is an untamed animal being trained and not a full-grown adult. Although Tom Robinson is treated harshly, Jem believes Atticus, the defendant lawyer and their father, has won the case because of the strong evidences presented and the fact that Tom is innocent (279). When the jury pronounce Tom guilty, Jem is exasperated and “his hands were white from gripping the balcony rail, and his shoulder jerked as if each ‘guilty’ was a separate stab between them,” (282).

He sets forward the gamble of being tried as someone who isn 't from the same status or race as the