The Guilty Of The 8th Juror In 12 Angry Men
In the play 12 Angry Men the 8th juror has a positive impact by standing up for what he believes in. The eighth juror voted not guilty because he couldn't sentence a boy to death without deliberating long and hard. As The eighth juror said on pg. 13 “ It's not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die within talking about it first.” The boy he refers to is 16 years old and the eighth juror couldn't let a boy who is technically a minor die, he feels that it is his civic duty to talk about it. The eighth juror creates reasonable doubt. In the words of the fourth juror “I now have reasonable doubt” page 71. This a big success for the not guilty side because the fourth juror was second in command for the guilty side, this shows that
Why Is Juror 8 Important In 12 Angry Men
1011 Words | 5 PagesHaylee Hulse Ms. Bryce Honors English Period 2 The Innocent I never thought I’d change my vote, but they made me believe. In this jury, everything seemed to point towards the boy being guilty, but one juror would not let this boy go to jail without giving him a fair trial. Juror 8 is the definition of an optimistic person. He decided that even though everything pointed obviously towards the bad, that he was going to look at the good.
Jurors Are Not Guilty In Twelve Angry Men
644 Words | 3 PagesGuilty or not guilty, all citizens deserve a thorough trial to defend their rights. Formulating coherent stories from events and circumstances almost cost a young boy his life. In Twelve Angry Men, 1957, a single juror did his duty to save the life of an 18 year old boy by allowing his mind to rationalize the cohesive information presented by the court and its witnesses. The juror’s name was Mr. Davis, he was initially the only one of 12 jurors to vote not guilty in reason that the young boy, sentenced with first degree murder, may be innocent. I am arguing that system 1 negatively affects the jurors opinion on the case and makes it difficult for Mr. Davis to convince the other jurors of reasonable doubt.
Guilty In Twelve Angry Men
695 Words | 3 PagesThe accused is clearly guilty of premeditated homicide. The play “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is about twelve unique jurors responsible for deciding if a teenager is guilty of premeditated homicide when he is charged with the murder of his father. Anyone present during the trial would be able to see the boy is guilty for a myriad of reasons. In Reginald Rose’s play “Twelve Angry Men” the defendant is guilty because he had a motive, there were witnesses to the crime, and he had a background of violence. The first reason the accused is guilty is that he had a motive.
Twelve Angry Men: Comparing The Book And Film
726 Words | 3 PagesI think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.” (13) In the movie, juror eight said basically the same exact statement with the exception of a few words, only instead of saying the boy was sixteen, he said that the boy was
Character Differences In 12 Angry Men
1133 Words | 5 PagesIt’s not so easy for me to send a boy off to die without talking about it first. ”(12 Angry Men) In the first difference, Juror 7 falls with Juror 3, believing much more of the facts than discussion. The second difference with the approach of the two jurors is in their persuasions techniques.
Juror Three In Twelve Angry Men
186 Words | 1 PagesI believe people do have a tendency to allow their prejudices to direct their decisions. People have their prejudices, feel they are right and go along with that feeling. A great example of this is Juror Three in Twelve Angry Men. He believed the boy murdered his father because he felt he did it.
Ethos, Pathos, Pathos And Logos In 12 Angry Men
1964 Words | 8 PagesWhat if juror 8 did not have the courage to freely state his opinion? The innocent boy would be dead for doing absolutely nothing.
Examples Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men
915 Words | 4 PagesPeople act upon what they think. Within “12 Angry Men”, all of the jurors have an opinion but some voice their more than others. One juror in particular, Juror Ten, voices his opinion about the boy in question. Repeatedly throughout the play, Juror Ten makes many thoughtless and hurtful comments about a certain kind of people. It is clear that Juror Ten’s uncompromising belief that the accused is guilty is because of his dislike for the boy’s race.
Standing Up To The Majority In 12 Angry Men
1191 Words | 5 PagesWilliam Jennings Bryan once said, “Never be afraid to stand with the minority when the minority is right, for the minority which is right will one day be the majority”. Standing up to the majority is vital, it gives individuals the opportunity to express their individual, unique opinions and experiences. It allows the majority to become open to diversity and the cultures that come along with it. This has been shown throughout history, Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have a Dream” speech, is an instance of this. This speech encapsulated all that he was fighting for, for the African American minority in America and their rights.
12 Angry Men Rhetorical Analysis
1186 Words | 5 Pages8th juror appeals to their sense of pathos and pity by saying “this boy’s been kicked around all his life… He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.” While this has nothing to do with the case, he hopes to appeal to their humanity in order to get them to give him a chance in these deliberations.
Minority Influence In 12 Angry Men
1458 Words | 6 PagesMobashshir Arshad Ansari DM 16230 The movie “12 Angry Men” is a court drama based movie. The entire film takes place within a small New York City jury room, on "the hottest day of the year," as 12 men debate the fate of a young defendant charged with murdering his father. Most courtroom movies feel it necessary to end with a clear-cut verdict. But "12 Angry Men" never states whether the defendant is innocent or guilty if innocent then who is guilty.
Juror Eight And Juror Three In John Steinbeck's 12 Angry Men
502 Words | 3 PagesJuror Eight was the only man from the beginning of the play who stuck by his belief that the kid was innocent. He stood alone in front of the other jurors and defended himself from the other jurors, such as Juror Three and Juror Ten. Jurors Three and Ten were adamant that the kid was guilty and refused to listen to Juror Eight’s “nonsense”. Juror Eight’s evidence and speeches persuaded all the other jurors to change their vote from not guilty, except for Juror Three. The only reason Juror Three had it out for the kid was because he himself had some issues with kids respecting their parents, and specifically their fathers.
Argumentative Essay On 12 Angry Men
549 Words | 3 PagesWhat if one day, twenty years from now you were chosen to discuss the fate of an eighteen year old boy. What would you do? Would you take your job and do it responsibly, or would you do it like some of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men and blow it off so you can finish early and leave. Even though there was a lot of controversy in that jury room, I noticed that Jurors 3,7, and 9 used their personalities, beliefs, and views of their responsibilities to bring the boy on trial to justice. This very excitable juror is the last to change his vote, and while his stubbornness could be seen as being based more on emotions than facts, he starts off with his little notebook with facts of the case and tries to insist that he has no personal feelings on the matter.
Reasonable Doubt In Twelve Angry Men
1011 Words | 5 PagesThis is an important element when deciding who the best and worst jurors were. There were no facts as to who was right or wrong because we didn’t see the crime in question. All
The Justice System In Twelve Angry Men
591 Words | 3 PagesThe justice system that relies on twelve individuals reaching a life-or-death decision has many complications and dangers. The play Twelve Angry Men, by Reiginald Rose, illustrates the dangers of a justice system that relies on twelve people reaching a life-or-death decision because people are biased, they think of a jury system as an inconvenience, and many people aren’t as intelligent as others. The first reason why Reiginald illustrates dangers is because people can be biased or they can stereotype the defendant. The Jurors in Twelve Angry Men relate to this because a few of them were biased and several of them stereotyped the defendant for being from the slums. The defendant in this play was a 19 year old kid from the slums.
More about The Guilty Of The 8th Juror In 12 Angry Men
Why Is Juror 8 Important In 12 Angry Men
1011 Words | 5 PagesJurors Are Not Guilty In Twelve Angry Men
644 Words | 3 PagesGuilty In Twelve Angry Men
695 Words | 3 PagesTwelve Angry Men: Comparing The Book And Film
726 Words | 3 PagesCharacter Differences In 12 Angry Men
1133 Words | 5 PagesJuror Three In Twelve Angry Men
186 Words | 1 PagesEthos, Pathos, Pathos And Logos In 12 Angry Men
1964 Words | 8 PagesExamples Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men
915 Words | 4 PagesStanding Up To The Majority In 12 Angry Men
1191 Words | 5 Pages12 Angry Men Rhetorical Analysis
1186 Words | 5 PagesMinority Influence In 12 Angry Men
1458 Words | 6 PagesJuror Eight And Juror Three In John Steinbeck's 12 Angry Men
502 Words | 3 PagesArgumentative Essay On 12 Angry Men
549 Words | 3 PagesReasonable Doubt In Twelve Angry Men
1011 Words | 5 PagesThe Justice System In Twelve Angry Men
591 Words | 3 Pages