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.
The jurors took literally almost day just bickering and arguing over whether the boy was guilty or not. In act two the jurors were starting to change their mind about their vote on whether or not the boy was guilty or not. That is where they started to kind of come to an agreement. From the beginning of act one juror number eight was always on the boys side, and the other guys always questioned why he thought the boy was innocent. Juror number eight did not have a reason he said “ he’s nineteen years old”.
Rotten kid! You work your heart out” (Twelve Angry Men). Every single other jury member has some reason as to why they voted, whether it be prejudice, gut feeling, based on the evidence, or just voting with the majority so they can all go home. Juror 3 is different. While everyone else contributes something about the case into their reason, Juror 3 simply chooses guilty based on events in his past.
The jurors in Twelve Angry Men also had to deal with this problem. Juror number 3 had a son who have not talked to in years because he was so tough on him when he was younger. This juror had no trouble believing that the boy killed his father because he thinks his son could have killed him. Juror number 11 was an immigrant who believed in the American Justice system with all his heart. He wanted to make sure that the boy had a fair trial because he believed that was the American way, his experiences in his own country were very unfair to people of different races, religions and
Though juror 3 has been adamant on the guilt of the young boy it is safe to say that this case meant more to him because the relationship with his son is similar to the relationship between the boy and the father. Since his personal vendetta causes him to forcefully accuse the boy of murder it leaves the jury 11-1 in favor of not guilty. Since carefully reviewing the movie it becomes very prevalent that there has not been enough substantial evidence to convict the boy of murder. Furthermore, with the usage of group think all of the men, accept juror 3 are able to put their pride aside and vote what they truly believe the verdict should be, which is not guilty. Though, one of the more pragmatic points in the film happens after juror 3 becomes infuriated after realizing that all of the men are voting not guilty.
The falling action in the play is that almost all the jurors decided to switch their vote from guilty to innocent except Juror #3. Juror #3 was obstinate about switching his vote from guilty to innocent because he believed that even with all the evidence that was shown the defendant is still guilty in his eyes. The resolution of the play is that Juror #3 finally decided to switch his vote from guilty to innocent because he wanted to leave already. All the jurors
Atticus and Juror 8 did what they believed was right even when society tried to shut them down. In To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus stood up for what he believed was right even if he was the only white man in the court fighting for a black man's life. Atticus said, "I'm no idealist to believe firmly in the integrity of our courts and in the jury system—that is no ideal to me, it is a living, working reality. Gentlemen, a court is no better than each man of you sitting before me on this jury. A court is only as sound as its jury, and a jury is only as sound as the men who make it up.
16, the jury had men dressed in the Cunningham’s formal wear, hinting that the men whom tried to kill the defendant Tom the night before, was in the jury. This just further proves my thoughts, because those that hate you, and or dislike you, will judge you with false accusations. Like Atticus( Scouts father) had once said “the court is as equal as its jury”. Bias can cause many uproars in the court, but a lack of evidence can cause the case to become confusing. Generally evidence is what sets the difference between a wide open case and a closed off one.
The play 12 Angry Men is about a jury of twelve men that are given the task of deciding the fate, guilty or not guilty, of a young boy accused of murdering his father. The theme of standing up against the majority is very prevalent in this story because of the decisions some of the jurors make throughout the play. Juror 8 makes the decision to vote not guilty, he is the one and only juror in this play that decides to vote not guilty for the boy in the beginning. The other eleven jurors decide to vote guilty because of the evidence that they have been presented with. The act of Juror 8 standing against the majority of the other jurors about the case, voting not guilty, allows the jurors to thoroughly dissect the case, understanding it fully and thoughtfully before making their decision of guilty or not guilty.
Ethan Monroe Mr. Rodgers English 9 20 April 2017 12 Angry Men: Stage Act vs Movie The act “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is about a jury deciding the fate of a boy charged with a murder of his father and a jury of 12 men. The men have to find the boy guilty or not guilty or if they do not decide they will become a hung jury. There is a lot of differences between the movie and the play with the way the jurors and act the way that they speak. The act makes the jurors seem like they look like something like they are not when I was reading the act, but then I saw the movie and it just didn’t click in my mind. I think that watching movies after reading the book kind of ruins the imagination that you came up with in your head.
Results from the trial lead many to believe justice wasn’t served. Defensive attorney John Adams used tactics to create confusion in the minds of the jurors so they could not be certain what actually took place. This proved to be very effective. Adam noted the crowd had been harassing the soldiers and also attacked them. There was no reliable evidence to back this up and it was generally believed, even if Preston was found guilty, he would be pardoned anyway.
All in all, Juror #8 played a strong, significant role in the trial outcome by proving to all eleven men that the young man may not have been guilty. After extreme perspiration from the grueling heat, the eleven jurors followed Juror #8’s lead for a verdict of not guilty. Even if some of the men did not truly believe the young man was not guilty due to the their own self righteousness, in the end the verdict was finally decided. Sadly, we cannot see the young man’s reaction, but we all probably can guess he’d be doing backflips with