Juror 3 is a strong, forceful man who refuses to alter his vote. Being very opinionated, he looks at the evidence “you sat right there in court and heard the same things, I did” (14) and doesn’t think beyond the facts. Still haunted by his own son, he verbally assaults the other jurors with mighty tone that knowing that a kid like his son is going to be locked up. Juror 3 and his son had some troubles with their relationship in the past. Juror 3 comes right out and says that he was going to make a man out of his son or bust him trying. Which in the end his son slaps his father across the face finally beating him back for the first time and fled town; since that day they haven’t spoken or seen each other. Since juror 3 feels that his son was not the way he was supposed to turn out, his feelings of his son were building up inside of him and were faced towards the case of the convicted.…
In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, Juror 4 undergoes a series of questions regarding his confidence that a young man is guilty of murder. From the beginning to the end of the play, Juror 4 gradually changes his mind about his initial vote, through the constructive discussions lead by Juror 8. Juror 4 moves from a belief that all legal witnesses are faultless to truly experiencing some sort of “reasonable doubt.” He is left with a clearer picture of the case, looking beyond his personal prejudices and biases.…
3rd Juror: 3rd Juror is a small business owner. He proudly says that he started his business from scratch and now employs thirty-four workers. He has a bad relationship with his own son.…
The jury is sent to a hot, crowded room to deliberate. Before any formal discussion, they cast a vote. Eleven of the jurors vote “guilty.” Only one juror votes “not guilty.” That juror, who is known in the script as Juror #8 is the protagonist of the play. As the tempers flare and the arguments begin, the audience learns about each member of the jury. And slowly but surely, Juror #8 guides the others toward a verdict of “Not Guilty.”…
As the number of people who think the defendant is guilty starts to dwindle, he chooses to use derogatory phrases such as “bleedin’ hearts” to try and persuade people to change their votes. He prefers to use brute force and voiced anger instead of logos to influence people. Although juror #3 frequently contradicts his argument, he dismisses it refuses to admit his…
The film 12 Angry Men is about a murder trial conducted in a courtroom. The judge gave the jury its final instruction telling them that a guilty verdict will result in a death sentence for the defendant, an 18-year-old boy who was accused of murdering his father using a knife! One juror had a personal connection with the case. He has not seen his son for more than two years. He claims that the young boy is guilty and that all young kids are criminals. The juror has bias towards the trial because he see his son in the young boy. Out of the twelve jurors, eleven jurors voted for conviction. Another juror states that he has doubts about the case and hopes to give the boy a favorable decision. The young boy had a hard life living in the slum. A third juror claims that each of the…
Juror 3‘s relationship with his estranged son conflicts with the case and how he is intolerant to young kids (ageism) he also believes that a common way of handling conflict in his family has always been with physical violence. Dependence on violence as a problem-solving strategy.…
Throughout the years of America, we had many juries during criminal trials to decide if the defendant guilty or not guilty. In the 1957 movie, 12 Angry Men shows the best representation of American jury system and how people change their minds. 12 Angry Men shows that personal feeling get in the way in their votes. The movie is about how 12 jurors decide the fate of young boy that persumed he killed his father, while during the initial vote only Juror 8 raised his hand not guilty. Then throughout the movie and script each of the 11 jurors for various reason change their votes to not guilty. The 12 jurors change their votes from guilty to not guilty through character flaws, positive personality traits, expertise on the evidence, and pattern of behavior.…
The generalisations established by certain Jurors, makes them oblivious to the facts before them. Characters rely on generalised stereotypes to support their prejudices against those of a lower-socio economic status. The 10th Juror says to other Jurors ‘the kids who crawl outta those places are real trash’ and the 4th Juror states ‘Children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society.’ Neither the 10th nor the 4th Jurors makes reference to specific details of the defendant’s situation, but…
This paragraph is going to tell three main differences between Jurors Three and Eight. One of the main differences is personality. Juror Three is dominant and strong, but Juror Eight is very concidering and laid back. Also, their judgment is very different. Juror Three is very judgmental, where as Juror Eight isn’t as quick to judge as Juror Three is. Their main difference is their opinions on whether or not the boy should have been voted guilty or not guilty. These are three main differences between the two jurors.…
It is obvious that the second juror to vote a not-guilty vote is not motivated either by the possibility of a reward or a punishment, nor does he appear to be conscious of being justice and rightful. He even claims that at that point he still believes in the probable guilt of the accused. He goes on explaining that the sudden change of his vote is merely based on his admiration for the lone dissenter, whom he begins to consider as a role-model, and his courage and strength to stand against conformity even in the face of ridicule. At this point of the film, it is noticeable that the second juror begins to identify with the lone dissenter. The mechanism of the identification process is at work and the charisma of the dissenter is further intensified by the rude and dismissive way in which another juror leaves the bathroom while the dissenter is speaking. Indeed, the second juror¡¦s desire to identify with the dissenting voice has been foreshadowed by several exchanges that have already set against the voice of the majority of the jurors which have been cast as either explicitly prejudiced, personally influenced, or exhibiting a near-total disinterest in the question of the accused¡¦s actual guilt or…
This section of the paper will go into a more in-depth discussion of the 5 key themes found in the participants' responses. As the biggest theme, time spent getting ready in the morning was in almost every response (see Appendix). The men lamented the fact that they would have to figure out how to do their hair and would most likely give up and put it in "a bad ponytail". Almost all the men that discussed getting ready also talked about how they would have to worry about putting on makeup. However, it is interesting to note that there are plenty of women throughout the world who do not wear makeup. In contrast, the women rejoiced in the fact that they "wouldn't have to spend any time, or maybe a minute" on their hair, "instead of 20ish minutes".…
Juror #3 came into this trial with a moral dilemma long before hearing the facts of the case. Given his past experiences, he would feel more inclined to vote guilty as to punish and make an example of this boy so that other kids would think twice. In this case if the jury decided on a guilty verdict, the defendant would be put to death. People might make rash decisions based…
His emotional prejudice gets in the way of his critically thinking through the evidence because he has emotional conflict with his own son. He is grouping all teens together because of his altercation with his son, and Juror 3 is just punishing the young man on trial because he cannot come to turns with his own failings as a parent with his child. Towards the end of the play Juror 3 is all alone on the vote count; he “looks around at all of them for a long time. They sit silently, waiting for him to speak, and all of them despise him for his stubbornness. Then, suddenly, his face contorts as if he is about to cry, and he slams his fist down on the table” … (thundering) All right” (30).…
Set in the sweltering summer of 1954, Reginald Rose's socially insightful play "Twelve Angry Men", illustrates the dangers of a justice system that relies on twelve individuals to reach a "life or death" decision with collective states of minds hindered by "personal prejudice". At the conception of the play, rose explores the idea that doubt is a harder state of mind than certainty by portraying doubt, in the guilt of the boy, as a minority view within the courtroom. However, as the play progresses a seed of doubt is planted and the importance of self prejudice hindering the verdict is removed, making it harder for the jurors to hold their certainty in their guilty verdict.…