Most of the jury was convinced the boy was guilty, but Juror 8 used relaxed tactics to change their minds. One of the last jurors to change his mind was Juror 3. He couldn’t be convinced at first, but eventually, he let Juror 8’s point sink in to add clarity. In addition, because of Juror 8’s civility, many jurors respected him. Juror 9 was one of the first jurors to show respect for Juror 8.
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.
The jurors are given the case on a hot day in downtown New York where tempers are running high with the heat. The jurors have to sort “facts from fancy” and come to an unanimous decision meaning they all have to vote guilty or not guilty. The juror I am going to discuss is the 8th juror, he was the only person to vote not guilty. I will discuss his character, how he effects the course of justice and how does he illustrate the theme of the play. I believe that the 8th juror is the most interesting juror of the twelve because in a way he is the perfect juror and represents the boy’s good luck.
The jury had a murder case that dealt with a nineteen-year-old man that was accused of murdering his father from several people. If the man was found guilty of the crime, then he would be sentenced to death. Each one of the jurors came to their own decision deciding whether or not the defendant was guilty of the crime or not. The rising action in the play is that only Juror #8 found the defendant innocent and all the other jurors found him guilty of the crime. In order for the jury to make a decision, they needed a unanimous vote.
In “The Brain on Trial”, David Eagleman claims that the justice system needs to change its sentencing policies due to the discoveries of neurobiological diseases that cause their sufferers to behave in socially unacceptable ways and/or commit crimes. Eagleman uses a variety of rhetorical strategies to present his viewpoint. The most important one is his appeal to logic. By using mostly examples, along with direct address to the readers, Eagleman is able to argue that the legal system has to modify its sentencing policies to take into account the advances made in neuroscience due to the increase in the amount of accused and/or convicted people who have been found to have harbored some kind of brain disease or damage. Eagleman
The system is said to not work because judges who make judgements are given thorough training and are taught to give judgements based on facts that are given. The South African legal system also contains faults in making thorough investigations. There are faults in the manner in which forensics make their investigations, leaving out important evidence which could have an impact on the case at hand. As a result of this the source mentions the fact that the judges are trained to make judgements on evidence given even if investigations have not been made thoroughly. Therefore a jury system would not work in relation to this because there would be twelve other people gathering up their opinions and make judgements based on other factors rather than the facts or evidence at
In the play also, Rose uses Logos, Ethos and Pathos to add persuasion and power to each Juror. Juror eight is a highly intelligent and logical person. In the start of the play, Juror eight is the only Juror to vote “not guilty” towards to trial. With his caring attitude towards the young boy in trial, he states that “I’m not
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE ESSAY Issues of bias in the judiciary often raise the question of whether South Africa should reinstate the jury system. This question can be approached from different angles. This essay sets out to explain the difference between a jury and bench trial and the pro’s and con’s of using each type of trial. An argument in favour or against the reinstatement of the jury system using theories as a basis to work will be addressed while also analyzing the socio political and economic factors that would affect the argument.
The success of jury trial largely depends on how the institution plays its role in practice. It can either help the court, or can severely harm its credibility and take the judiciary to worse condition. He also observed that, if the rules are enforced and the procedures implemented justly and fairly, then the jury system will have a better chance of
With the death of his wife, and the fact that he is no longer active in law enforcement, Grant goes off to mete out his own brand of justice to the cases he feels most aggrieved about not having been solved. The problem with being judge, jury and executioner however, is that sometimes you find you might be wrong. The idea of a retired cop playing vigilante and bringing killers who got away with murder to justice really intrigued me. The prologue starts with a bang and sets the tone for the book, so you expect a fast-paced ride. The book lays out a bit of Grant’s background and how his son-in-law came to work with him.