I have a right,” and “A guilty man’s going to be walking on the streets. 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.” Building on the idea that Michael hated his wife, Anderson also cast him as sexually deviant. Over the protests of the defense, Judge Lott allowed the district attorney to show jurors the first two minutes of Handful of Diamonds, the adult video that Michael had rented, under the pretext that it established his state of mind before the murder.
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.
However, they are wrong in the fact that all citizens should need to serve on the jury because people will misuse this power and will not truly understand their effect on the case and more importantly the people live on trail. Like in “Twelve Angry Men” jurors did not talk their vote serious and only voted for the majority. “Oh. well… I think he’s guilty. I thought is was obvious.
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
I am surprised Zak didn’t event put two and two together. He saw when his father was at a shooting range, then some time later he is being accused of murder, well okay then. Maybe this proves that everybody is not as much of a thinker as they should at twelve years old, context clues. Even the jury of the trial for the case were darn right stupid. The judge even knew the Zak father murdered the Rabbi, he was applauded by their decision on the crime he committed.
In the story, 12 angry men, some of these men immediately assumed that the kid was guilty of murder. Some of them also had their decisions of the kid being not guilty. These men made their decisions without evidence so they didn’t know what to make up of it besides what the case is about with a kid accused
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. Juror eight exclaims how the old man has had strokes, and walks with a cane, certifying his testimony is faulty.
Through the play, ‘Twelve Angry Men’ established in 1957, the playwright, Reginald Rose signifies the importance of both rational attitude and emotions when making crucial decisions. Gathering on the “hottest day of the year” in a “large, drab, bare” jury room is throbbing for most jurors’ present. They have gathered to reach a ‘fair’ verdict and follow the judge’s instruction to “deliberate honestly and thoughtfully” as prejudice and experiences cloud their judgements. Whilst every juror has a different approach to the case, Rose demonstrates that both emotion and reason are used in the process of decision making. Taking decision without the interference of personal life leads one taking a fair judgement.
We are introduced to the narrator and his story with suspense, and as the police drag him away, the audience is still left in suspense. Edgar Allan Poe’s decision to start of with a high level of suspicion from the very beginning and only increasing it from there is like having multiple people compliment you; both start off unexpectedly and it only betters the experience. We happen to realize that with all the steps he took in order to kill the old man, the young boy doesn’t account for his guilt, which is why he confesses. Guilt is something nobody can be ready for, not even a