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. That is until he is called out by his fellow jurors.
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.”
This boy can not have been more than 13 years old, accompanying him were two grown adults who were also accused of messing with the power. As said before, there was equality, but not the way one thinks. Having the children in the camp watch the cruelty can change their view on everything; they can become totally different. “I once saw one of them (pipel), a boy a thirteen, beat his father for not making his bed properly. As the old man
12 Angry Men was an act to show how irresponsible people were back in the days. It showed the immaturity of the judges. The fact that they didn’t care about what happened with the client, made them seem like that wasn’t the right job for them. There was few judges who would follow their critique like juror 8 his job was to analyze and go deeper into the case and that’s what facinated me the most. The juror had arguments through out the act.
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.
Though much of Elizabeth’s testimony had felt “almost rehearsed,” jury foreman Mark Landrum told me, her disgust for Michael in that moment had been palpable. “From that moment on, I didn’t like Michael Morton,” Landrum said. “I’m assuming the entire jury felt that way too. Whether he was a murderer or not was still to be determined, but I knew that I did not like him.”
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
12 Angry Men Henry Fonda the eighth juror paradigm is the belief that the 18-year-old is innocent because how the evidence doesn’t seem clear to him. At the start of the trial all of the jurors, but him believes the boy killed his father. His paradigm is positive because he believes the boy has done nothing wrong and he pulls theories on why the boy could be innocent. What Henry paradigm creates is how the old man and woman are witnesses that made false accusations. What he gets from this is convincing the other jurors why he could be right.
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.
As Jem is constantly exposed to racism throughout Maycomb, he begins to lose his innocence. While Jem and Scout are waiting for the verdict of Tom Robinson, Jem and Scout are so nervous they can hardly look. “I shut my eyes. Judge Taylor was polling the jury: Guilty… guilty...guilty...guilty... I peeked at Jem: his hands were white from gripping the balcony rail, and his shoulders jerked as if each guilty was a separate stab between them” (282).
I can see that Jonas has been asking more and more questions. I’m sure sooner or later he will answer them one way or another. This leads me to believe that the Elders have been more untruthful than truthful. 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.
They hate me. I 'm black, they won 't let me go.” Atticus said with the most softest voice he could have and said “don 't worry i got this.” Atticus was trying his best to show the judge that Tom was innocent with all the evidence he had, but most of the town is very racist. So it 's very hard to convince anyone in the jury to be convinced that Tom did not do it.
Jerry is that one character that had a huge impact on me. I think in many ways he had an impact on many people he didn 't go with the crowd and he did pay the punishment for that. Jerrys disturbed the universe caused a lot of trouble in the all boys school of Trinity. He had a small influence on the other boys, but it was one Jerry Vs. all the vigils.
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.
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).