Twelve Angry Men: Standing Alone
Standing alone takes a great deal of courage. At the start of book The Twelve Angry Men Juror Eight stands alone. Later in the book Juror Three is the one who is left standing alone. Standing Alone is one of the most difficult things to do because everyone is trying to join the majority since they believe the majority is correct. One of the reasons it is difficult to stand alone is because everyone is against you opinion since they think they are correct. Some people also believe that the majority must be correct. Another difficulty is that other people with a different opinion will try to put you down and make you believe that you are even though you could be right. It is difficult because some of the people who are with the majority just …show more content…
Your opinion matters because it opens up things for discussion. If two different opinions are expressed on a subject such as, if someone is guilty or not guilty for committing a crime, then through discussing the matter all thoughts are processed through once more until everyone is agreed on the matter. Standing up against everyone else’s opinions can be tough, but you might end up being the one who is right in the end. For example, in The Twelve Angry Men Juror Eight isn’t so quick to pronounce the boy guilty of killing his father. Juror Eight doesn’t necessarily think that the boy is innocent or guilty, but he isn’t so quick to judge the boy. Also he doesn’t think it is so clear cut. The boy’s story is discussed again which leads to changing Juror Nine’s mind of calling the boy guilty. In this example is was good that Juror Eight was courageous enough to stand alone against the other eleven Jurors. I am sure that I have stood alone a few times in my life however, I don’t remember many of these times. I do, however, remember how I stood up for a classmate in one of my old schools who was being trash talked. Nasty rumors were spread around about her which were not true. Many believed these rumors and would not speak to her. I, on the other hand, stood up for her when she was being trash talked behind her back. People
12 Angry Men Assessment: 12 Angry Men
755 Words | 4 PagesThough 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.
Twelve Angry Men: Comparing The Book And Film
726 Words | 3 PagesWhen asked why he voted not guilty, juror eight stated “Look, this boy has been kicked around all his life. You know---living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. He spent a year in and a half in an orphanage while his father served a jail term for forgery. That’s not a very good head start. He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years.
Character Differences In 12 Angry Men
1133 Words | 5 PagesWhile both end up voting the same way, their approaches throughout the majority of the film are vastly different. To start, the third juror is much more factual, stating in the film, “Okay let’s get the facts… and he ran to the door of his apartment and the boy!”(12 Angry Men) This immediately shows the viewer that Juror 3 will base the majority of his argument in fact. In contrast, Juror 8 feels that communicating with the other jurors and piecing together their views is a better way to solve the case. This is shown when Juror 8 says, “There were eleven votes guilty.
Juror Three In Twelve Angry Men
186 Words | 1 PagesAs the play went on, Juror Eight started proving how the boy was innocent. In the end Juror Eight changed all the other juror’s minds, except for Juror Three’s. Juror Three ended up changing his vote, not because they changed his mind but because he gave into peer pressure. He still had his prejudice influenced decision, he only gave in because he didn't want it to be a hung jury. Another example, from the same play, is Juror Eight.
Peer Pressure In Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men
1247 Words | 5 PagesIn all facets of human life there is a constant pressure. One of the most potent forms of this is peer pressure. It affects how humans make decisions, in all facets of an everyday life. Peer is a force that can bring out the best and worst of humanity. Additionally, in the context of Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men peer pressure is used to highlight the best and worst aspects of the American judicial system circa 1954.
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.
Juror 3 Character Analysis Essay
980 Words | 4 PagesHe displays the tendency of an introverted Pragmatist with the Thinker preferences. Therefore, it takes him very long and requires several opinions laid out by other Jurors to change his mind from ‘guilty’ to ‘not guilty’. At the same time, he was firm and unafraid to stand up for himself once he changed his vote. He is sympathetic towards the boy as he grew up in the slum himself which caused him to disagree with Juror 3 numerous time. Therefore, his own upbringing in the slum makes him more knowledgeable about how the boy could have handled the switchblades and also the traits of living in the slum in
Standing Up To The Majority In 12 Angry Men
1191 Words | 5 PagesThe 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.
12 Angry Men Rhetorical Analysis
1186 Words | 5 PagesTwelve 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.
Argumentative Essay On 12 Angry Men
549 Words | 3 PagesThis man may be a bit timid in part due to his old age, but his quiet nature also makes him insightful, noticing very specific details about witnesses that many others on the jury missed. He seems to come off as the most respectable and well mannered man out of the twelve. He 's the first to change his vote to not guilty, mostly to give Juror 8 a chance to make his case and out of respect for his motives in gambling for support. In talking about the older man that gave testimony it 's almost as though he 's talking about himself, revealing that he wants to be useful and to do something valuable, even if it 's just this once as a juror. As you may have noticed out of all the twelve men in the movie, each and everyone of them has unique personalities, that all at one point throughout the trial, played a very effective role in deciding this boy 's fate.
Leadership In 12 Angry Men
630 Words | 3 PagesLeadership and roles are depicted throughout the whole movie by many different jurors. The designated leader of the jury group was Juror #1. Juror #1 was when they first entered into the room but Juror #8 took the emergent role when he declined to agree with a guilty verdict. His rejection to agree in a guilty verdict was crucial since he voiced his uncertainty to the evidence at a early stage.
12 Angry Men Analysis
814 Words | 4 PagesJuror Ten announces his intentions very early in the play. He speaks loudly and forcefully from the beginning, clearly showing his racism and prejudice towards the boy. Juror 10 quickly votes guilty and asserts that the defendant cannot be believed because “they’re born liars”. Additionally, he claims that the “kids who crawl outa those places are real trash.”
Examples Of Social Injustice In 12 Angry Men
803 Words | 4 PagesIn 12 Angry Men, the movie begins in a courtroom where the case is being discussed by the judge, who seems fairly uninterested. The jurors are then instructed to enter the jury room to begin their deliberations. They take a vote and all but juror 8 vote guilty. The jurors react violently to the dissenting vote but ultimately decide to go around the table in hope of convincing the 8th juror.
Social Psychology In The Movie Twelve Angry Men
721 Words | 3 PagesThis theory is practicable inside of the juror’s decisional processes of the “Twelve Angry Men.” Conformity is described from the beginnings of the film. When the jurors cast their initial vote, doubt is clear in many of the jurors whom vote guilty. This inhibition might be commented as weak belief shaked by the guilty majority’s influence. Additionally, though the movie is not provide any references about the timelines of decision this is a relevant factor presumably affecting the “Twelve Angry Men,” and should be considered as a potential element in creating social
More about Twelve Angry Men: Standing Alone
12 Angry Men Assessment: 12 Angry Men
755 Words | 4 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 PagesPeer Pressure In Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men
1247 Words | 5 PagesEthos, Pathos, Pathos And Logos In 12 Angry Men
1964 Words | 8 PagesExamples Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men
915 Words | 4 PagesJuror 3 Character Analysis Essay
980 Words | 4 PagesStanding Up To The Majority In 12 Angry Men
1191 Words | 5 Pages12 Angry Men Rhetorical Analysis
1186 Words | 5 PagesArgumentative Essay On 12 Angry Men
549 Words | 3 PagesLeadership In 12 Angry Men
630 Words | 3 Pages12 Angry Men Analysis
814 Words | 4 PagesExamples Of Social Injustice In 12 Angry Men
803 Words | 4 PagesSocial Psychology In The Movie Twelve Angry Men
721 Words | 3 Pages