Preview

Juror 10

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
566 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Juror 10
Juror 10 There are two main characteristics of the 10th juror that influence his verdict. The first is that juror 10 is prejudiced against the defendant (most likely he is racist, but we can not be 100% sure). The second is that he is uncaring and impatient. The first time we get a glimpse of juror 10’s prejudice is on page 7 when he says “It’s the element. I’m telling you they let those kids run wild up there. Well, maybe it serves them right.” He believes that anyone coming from a poor neighborhood is less than human. We can see right from the start that the verdict that the defendant is undoubtedly ‘guilty’ is locked in his mind simply because he has a personal grudge against people like the defendant. Next, on page 10 and 14, he states “You can’t believe a word they say” and “The kids who crawl outa those places are real trash”. Clearly it can be seen that he has a certain unfounded prejudice towards the defendant, viewing him as a liar and a piece of trash, with no supporting evidence. This prejudice most surely influences his verdict of ‘guilty’ without view of any evidence. If that is not enough, starting on page 62 Juror 10 begins a speech lasting 2 pages in which he spews out his views of people like the defendant: “Human life doesn’t mean as much to them as it does to us…And they are-wild animals.” Juror 10 is an impatient and uncaring/unconcerned person. It is made clear by viewing his lines that Juror 10 does not take his part on the jury seriously and only wants to reach a consensus as quickly as possible. His reason is quickly found on page 22 when he states, “I got three garages of mine going to pot while your talking. Let’s get done and get outa here.” On page 34 he impatiently asks, “What’s the idea of wasting everybody’s time here?” Clearly he just wants to get back to his garages; he

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Prejudice: There are many significant views and values that Reginald Rose demonstrates in 12 Angry Men the most important one being that prejudice constantly affects the truth and peoples judgement. As the jurors argue between themselves as to whether a young boy is guilty of stabbing his father it is shown that “It’s very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this.” This is most evident in the way juror #3 and juror #10 come to their decision that the young man is guilty as they bring in there prejudice against young people and people from the slums to make their judgement without considering the facts of the case. Rose uses juror #8 who can see the whole trial because he is calm, reasonable and brings no prejudice as a prime example of what a juror is supposed to be like.…

    • 510 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    At first Mr. Davis’ bases his vote more so for the sake of discussion after all, the jurors must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. As the deliberations unfold, the story quickly becomes a study of the jurors’ complex personalities (ranging from wise, bright and empathetic to arrogant, prejudiced and merciless), preconceptions, backgrounds and interactions. That provides the backdrop to Mr. Davis’ attempts in convincing the other jurors that a “not guilty” verdict might be appropriate.…

    • 922 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    12 Angry Men Questions

    • 1031 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Juror 10 is one of the most racist and prejudice of the all the jurors a quote to show this is “Now you’re not going to tell us that we’re supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say. I mean, they’re born liars.” When he says this he means/believes that people are born in slums are born to live lives of crime and disseat, even thou juror 5 was born and lived in a slum all his life…

    • 1031 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    5. Juror #8 was able to convince the other 11 jurors simply because he presented good, valid arguments. He also knew how to separate the fact and fiction from the given facts.…

    • 336 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Research Paper

    • 919 Words
    • 4 Pages

    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).…

    • 919 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    12 Angry Men

    • 717 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Juror 10 is clearly motivated by his prejudice. He uses his intolerance to determine his vote for the accused defendant. For instance, in the beginning of Act I, Juror 10 haphazardly said, “ Look at the kind of people they are, you know them,” (13) without even digging deep into the case. It is quite obvious that Juror 10 is generating an “opinion” of the defendant based on the color of his skin and his background. He does not refer to them as regular people, but as “they” and “them” on certain pages. In the courtroom though, no juror is to have any judgments, they are supposed to bring the facts to the table, not their opinions. Juror 10’s outlook of the defendant is blinding him from thinking of any reasonable doubt. Further more, when Juror 10 said, “…I lived among em’ all my life, you can’t believe a word they say. You know that,” he yet again was referring to the defendant’s people as “em” and “they”. You can clearly infer that while Juror 10 was living amongst them, he must have experienced or witnessed situations which has caused him to have judgments on these specific people. These same judgments he brings to the courtroom just add difficulty into solving the case. Following Juror 10’s views further, when Juror 5 was explaining how the person who did stab the father was…

    • 717 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Juror 12 keeps to himself and seems distracted and not interested. He plays noughts and crosses and draws sketches of his advertisements. Cannot articulate his reasoning and changes his vote on multiple occasions…

    • 1675 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    12 Angry Men

    • 379 Words
    • 2 Pages

    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…

    • 379 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    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…

    • 853 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Jury Selection

    • 1223 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Every American that has registered to vote or has a drivers license can at any time be called to serve on a jury. There are mixed feelings about being called for duty. Some Americans see it as a nuisance that will disrupt their lives. Others see it as an opportunity to serve their country. Being called to serve, and actually serving is two different matters. A jury is ultimately selected by the judge, prosecutor and defending attorney. How they are they picked? How are they released? Maybe this paper will answer a few of these questions.…

    • 1223 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    each juror has there own deficiencies or less than ideal qualities, these emerge through their interactions with eachother or their attitudes towards their trial. juror 10 is predjudice regularly using stereotypes to condemn the defendsant without actually considering if what he is saying is true. such as ‘a very big drinker’ or a born liar’ the third juror is guilty of stereotyping the defendant based on age, and he defends his opinions and stereotypes violently in the jury room, such as his near attack on 8th juror at the end of the first act. the play does not let a single character escape unflawed. even 8th juror,…

    • 559 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Twelve Angry Men

    • 328 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The 3rd juror is the most outspoken about the 'guilt' of the teenager. As the play goes along it is revealed he has a personal connection with what has happened, he feels anger towards his own son, an anger which he has transferred onto the accused. A key moment for the third juror is when he finally changes his vote to ‘not guilty’ which is when he is reminded by the 8th juror “It’s not your boy. He’s somebody else’”, followed by the 4th juror stating “let him live”. Right up to this point, the third juror was committed to his ‘guilty’ vote. By juror 3 allowing his emotional baggage to enter the jury room with him it is clear that from the beginning of the play, his personal experience with his son were physiologically too powerful for him to be able to make the right verdict for the defendant.…

    • 328 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Juror 10 is one of the most racist and prejudice of the all the jurors a quote to show this is “Now you’re not going to tell us that we’re supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say. I mean, they’re born liars.” When he says this he means/believes that people are born in slums are born to live lives of crime and disseat, even thou juror 5 was born and lived in a slum all his life he is a perfectly respectably man. This proves that juror 10 was wrong and people born in slums aren’t born to lie and commit crime. There for prejudice did obscure the truth for juror 10.…

    • 518 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    I personally think that Jury number 9 does not fully fulfil the standards of thinking. Based from the readings the standards of thinking “Whenever we think there is always a purpose, within a point of view, based on assumptions, leading to implications and consequences. We use data, facts, and experiences to make inferences and judgments, based on concepts and theories to answer a question or solve a problem.” Juror number 9 obviously did not fulfil these standards. One thing that I noticed about this juror is that when he decided to change sides he only did this for the sake of giving Henry Fonda a breather. He only did this because he thinks that the men inside the room are being too harsh on the boy and o Henry Fonda. This old man did not have a specific purpose towards the case. It would be acceptable that if he changed sides because he doubted the case but he didn’t.…

    • 1021 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Throughout the play from the starting juror 8 is the only one who votes ‘not guilty’ as he says, ‘It’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.’ This clearly tells us that he had gone through all the evidences and found them to be lacking whereas all the other eleven jurors had assumed that this was an ‘open and shut case’ without thinking of any other chances. This is obvious when he says towards the end of the play, ‘….we have a reasonable doubt, and this is a safeguard which has enormous value in our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it’s sure.’ These words of juror 8 have a tremendous influence on the other jurors to vote unanimously ‘not guilty’ in favour of the boy.…

    • 721 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays

Related Topics