Stigma In 12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men Homar Cruz 1A In the act 12 Angry Men the author wanted to show the reader that jurors are having irresponsible behaviors, without juror 8 the boy would’ve been unfairly convicted. Also you can make an inference that the boy's attorney didn’t have the capacity to defend him in court. For instance, when all jurors arrived to the courtroom the clerk decided on a vote. Mainly all jurors raised their hand, wanted to get out of their, wanted to go watch their concert. This proves that jurors are being irrelevant.

Later in the book, the court case occurs. Atticus does his best to defend Tom Robinson, but the men on the jury decide the verdict for each other before the trial starts. At the end, “Judge Taylor was polling the jury” (282), which concludes that Robinson is “‘Guilty… guilty… guilty… guilty’” (282). Not one person, it seems, admits that Robinson is most likely innocent. His race decides for them, because they understand no other way to think than in a racist manner.

His eagerness to find the truth, yet not get caught in the mob set him apart from the other judges. He is the first in the court to question their justice, and inevitably loses all former weight he held in the court, mainly due to his own exodus. With this the voice of reason in the novel is also crushed, leaving only false accusations and hysteria. The day John Proctor is scheduled to hang, Mary Warrens deposition, and his first arrival in Salem all shaped him into the desperate character the reader witnesses and sympathizes with at the end of The Crucible by Arthur

Early in the movie all men, except one juror, number eight, agree that the boy is guilty without a doubt. In this case normative influencer took place which is going along with the crowd in order to be liked or accepted. Juror eight was the only person from the beginning of the deliberation to the end of it that thought the boy was innocent and he had to basically break down all the men to understand why it was true. Also some of the men did not care if the boy was a person who deserved a fair trial because in their eyes he was not like them and they knew people like his kind to be

Twelve Angry Men is in many ways a love letter to the American legal justice system. We find here eleven men, swayed to conclusions by prejudices, past experience, and short-sightedness, challenged by one man who holds himself and his peers to a higher standard of justice, demanding that this marginalized member of society be given his due process. We see the jurors struggle between the two, seemingly conflicting, purposes of a jury, to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. It proves, however, that the logic of the American trial-by-jury system does work. On another level, the play is about America and its makeup as a melting pot of different cultures, ideas, beliefs, and temperaments.

In “Twelve Angry Men” juror 3’s strong mind and prejudice causes him to label the defendant and judge him before ever knowing the facts in the case. Because juror 3 has such strong opinions he isn’t afraid to say what he believes it causes problems. In the novel antagonist enlightens the other jurors on him and his son situation after his son punched him in the face, he makes the comment “I haven’t seen him in two years. Rotten kid.” By juror 3 making this comment he's letting people know that he thinks kids are rotten and have no respect for their parents that have does everything for them. This makes him hateful and hostile towards younger boys.

To begin with, bob Ewell’s behavior during trial was provocative, ignorant, and gave off a vibe of untrustworthiness.Prejudicial behavior gave residents a sense of comfortable superiority which limits their ability of development as humans. To begin with, Bob Ewell’s behavior during trial was provocative, ignorant, and gave off a vibe of untrustworthiness. Ewells disrespected the judge as soon as he enters the court for he causes a commotion coming in late. He stated “ get out to his house quick, some nigger’d raped his girl.” (Lee 108-109) This explains his behavior, Ewell’s actions are provocative having the need to do and say as he pleases, because he thinks fully of himself and feels comfortable at where his positions stands. Later into the trial it is bob ewell turn to take the witness stand while continuing to be as cocky as ever, but as the questions demanded more detail atticus reaches a standing point that ewell is left handed but tom is not because he got his arm ripped loose by a cotton gin meaning there is no possible way that tom could have done anything”bob Ewell.. [...] signing it with his left hand, and Tom Robinson now sits before you, having taken the oath with one only good hand he poses- his right hand” (Lee 208) Atticus Finch then discredits Ewell and demonstrates that it was not Tom who had made the injuries for his left arm was 12 inches shorter than his normal arm and could not inflict damage with one arm.

Not only did they have mental damage from the trial, now they also had physical damage. Jem was enraged at the townspeople for finding Tom Robinson guilty when they knew he was innocent. He couldn’t fathom how his father could work for a justice system who did no justice for Tom. Jem now realizes how much racism there is in Maycomb and his faith in the justice system is badly hurt. Scout doesn’t grasp the severity of the trial as much as Jem but they both know, although to different degrees, that life isn’t fair, justice isn’t always served, and people would lie just to save their own

The purpose of Reginal Rose’s in the play 12 Angry Men is to give the reader the idea of how different the court system was different from then to now. This also emphasizes the essence of bias between these twelve individuals, therefore this caused conflict between one another. This play was between the (1920’s-2002’s) but more towards the 1950’s. During this period the court system was very complex in terms of the judicial system helping the prosecutor’s rights. The Jury at instances came to a decision that would benefit them and not the prosecutor, since they had the final word on a case.

Juror #8 is the first man to vote not guilty in the case, and they should revise their approach because there is reasonable doubt of the boy, which is the beginning of the conflict. Based on their personal ghosts and anger, impatience and prejudice, the rest of jurors is engaged in affective conflict. For example, Juror #3 has a personal feeling about the behavior of kids, and he is certain that the boy is guilty based on his own prejudice. He says, “I’ve got a kid…when he was fifteen, he hit me in the face…I haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid!