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.
“One guy has a knife. it's not really a knife, but a blade glued onto a toothbrush handle.” he writes, and continues on about how he wants to leave, “All they talk about here is hurting people.” He is not the real monster, he is not violent, and he knows deep inside he isn’t the monster everyone says he is. He didn't murder anyone, and he knows he is innocent, and the jury knows it too. He has never hurt anyone, and everyone is trying to blame him so they get a short in their sentence. Multiple “witnesses” or people who overheard about the robbery and murder are convicted or unreliable they all wanted someone to blame and someone to shorten their time in jail.
The prosecutor and Meursault 's lawyer come up with explanations based on logic and reason, yet Meursault doesn’t really seem to care about what he has done and doesn’t want to think about it either. A motif in the novel is death. Meursault doesn’t show any emotion towards his mother dying, but everyone around him believes
There is a similarity between the play of Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose and Trifles regarding the idea of investigating the evidences. Eleven men who are sure the murder is guilty have made up their minds before they have even considered that the killer might be innocent. But, Juror eight gets them to review the evidence more carefully. As a group, the judges developed visions that even most jurors changed their views when the validity of the evidence was shown to be a questionable. There is a similarity between the play of Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose and Trifles regarding the idea of investigating the evidences.
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
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 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.
Not one single guard told him to stop, they joined in on his actions. This is important because not only were the guards now acting more disciplined towards the prisoners, but prisoners started feeling like it was a real prison. Zimbardo and his researchers were completely drawn in. They stood there watching and didn’t take action to tell the guards that they went too far. It wasn’t until one of Zimbardo’s colleague asked him was the independent variable of the experiment that made Zimbardo realized how was no longer the researcher but the superintendent of the
“The Sniper” is a riveting story about an intelligent man at war, who may have made the biggest mistake of his life. He mistakenly killed his own brother in the midst of the battle. “Lather and Nothing Else” is a suspenseful story leaving you on the edge of your seat. A man must make the decision; to kill his greatest enemy or let him go like any other client. The stories leave you wanting more, needing more details.
The critic 's argument is invalid because Atticus did not need to volunteer because Judge Taylor already knew Atticus 's standpoint and work ethic. He also did help fight against racism in the town by persuading people in the courtroom and inform them of a man equally as good and capable of that as a white man would be. Atticus was known for his hardworking attribute and his will to succeed in whatever needed to be accomplished. He showed in the court what success really was. According to Metress, Atticus was chosen and did not voluntarily defend a black citizen of Maycomb.
I had no one to stand beside me and to support financially nor morally, in that time of persecution. I was penniless and had no paid lawyer to argue on my behalf. Court had provided me a lawyer who advised me to be silent, to act like mentally ill in the court, when trialed, to draw sympathy of the court and to escape from capital punishment. I didn’t know that my lawyer too was well sided with my enemy and it was a ploy, to turn the case in their favor and to keep me in the jail and mute me. I was unaware of their trap at the time of trial.
Lastly, the conflicts in the story demonstrate the struggles and trials Dooley goes through, in an attempt to create a new beginning. The first conflict is faced by Dooley at the very starting of the novel, when he gets questioned for the death of Mark Everley. For example, the author narrates, “The homicide cop asked Dooley if he knew the dead kid. Dooley hesitated again. He didn’t like the way the homicide kept his eyes on him and never one looked away, like he thought that if he did, he might miss the one thing that would let him nail Dooley” (McClintock 11).
The way it was done there was no question that Steve Avery did it, but if it was done correctly he wouldn’t have got arrested for the sexual assault in the first place. The sketch artist never drew what Penny told him. Instead he drew a picture of Steven Avery and asked her was it him. Penny had no choice but to say yes because it seemed very familiar. Another error was a sheriff being involved in the case so much that didn’t even have anything to do with him.
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.
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.