12 Angry Men Rhetorical Analysis
Father and Son
In the play, Twelve Angry Men, juror #3 is an excitable, stubborn, and prejudiced man. He seems to be of middle class background because he can afford to look down on people from slum areas. From the way he refuses to listen to any other person’s opinions, if it contradicts his own, juror #3 marks himself as an ignorant and obstinate individual. He is quick to judge and eagerly jumps at any opportunity to engage himself in an argument, such as the dispute he starts with juror #5 over a changed verdict: “We’re trying to put a guilty man in the chair where he belongs and all of a sudden somebody’s telling us fairy tales – and we’re listening.” The third juror uses ethos to no avail and comes across as an unpleasant, partial, and uneducated man. …show more content…
He hit me in the face. He’s big, y’know. I haven 't seen him in two years. Rotten kid. You work your heart out…” He also replaces the defendant with his son in his mind: “That goddamn rotten kid. I know him. What they’re like. What they do to you. How they kill you everyday.”
From the very beginning of the play, he has been very outspoken about his opinion and makes it very clear that he believes the defendant to be a cold-hearted killer. Every time a testimony or piece of evidences’ accuracy is questioned he dismisses it and ignores the new standpoint. He then continues to use the evidence and testimony that was contradicted.
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
In the play, Twelve Angry Men, juror #3 is an excitable, stubborn, and prejudiced man. He seems to be of middle class background because he can afford to look down on people from slum areas. From the way he refuses to listen to any other person’s opinions, if it contradicts his own, juror #3 marks himself as an ignorant and obstinate individual. He is quick to judge and eagerly jumps at any opportunity to engage himself in an argument, such as the dispute he starts with juror #5 over a changed verdict: “We’re trying to put a guilty man in the chair where he belongs and all of a sudden somebody’s telling us fairy tales – and we’re listening.” The third juror uses ethos to no avail and comes across as an unpleasant, partial, and uneducated man. …show more content…
He hit me in the face. He’s big, y’know. I haven 't seen him in two years. Rotten kid. You work your heart out…” He also replaces the defendant with his son in his mind: “That goddamn rotten kid. I know him. What they’re like. What they do to you. How they kill you everyday.”
From the very beginning of the play, he has been very outspoken about his opinion and makes it very clear that he believes the defendant to be a cold-hearted killer. Every time a testimony or piece of evidences’ accuracy is questioned he dismisses it and ignores the new standpoint. He then continues to use the evidence and testimony that was contradicted.
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