12 Angry Men Juror 8 A Hero

909 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: How are jurors 3 and 8 similar from 12 angry men

Who in the “Twelve Angry Men,” is the hero? While some may think deeper to show that other jurors are the hero, but the real hero is, in fact, Juror eight. Not only was eight the voice of reason in the group, he is the one that got all the other jurors to get past their prejudice and really look at the facts of the case. Juror eight was the one from the start that stood up for his beliefs even in a room where all eleven other men were against you. So, Juror eight is the hero of this story because he got the others to really look at the evidence and testimonies, stood up against the others for his beliefs, and got the others to get past their prejudices to make the vote purely on the facts. The first reason that Juror eight is a hero is …show more content…

The second testimony that he questioned was the old man’s. Juror eight did not believe that the old man could have gotten across the room fast enough to see the boy running down the stairs. …show more content…

In beginning when the jurors were taking their first vote, he stood against them, by himself, for his belief that the boy was not guilty based on the evidence that the jurors have been given. He even stood up against the others when it seemed that the other jurors had made up their minds about the boy. This is very different from what Juror three did at the end of the play because at the end of the play Juror three saw that he was the only one that still thought that the boy was guilty. After three saw this he backed down and went with everyone else. This makes Juror eight the hero because heroes need to stand up for what they believe in if they think that they are in the right. Also if eight would have not stood up for what he had believed in, then the boy would have gone to prison with evidence that didn’t prove he killed his father. The example of what three did at the end is used to show what someone who is not a hero would have done. Someone who is not a hero would not have stood up for what they believe in, they would have just gone with what everyone else was

Show More
Related

  • Juror 3 In 12 Angry Men

    380 Words  | 1 Pages

    Juror Three was the main antagonist of the story and was also the last one to change his vote to “not guilty.” Throughout “Twelve Angry Men”, he was very aggressive to anyone who did not share the same opinions as him. He stated this to Juror Eight after he was called a sadist, “Shut up! {Lunges at Eight, but is caught by two of the JURORS and is held. He struggles as EIGHT watches calmly. Then he screams.} Let me go! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” Also, it was very hard for Juror Three to change his mind. We can see this in the book and the movie. Although the facts he stated were all disproven, he would go back to them. Also, it was hard for him to change his mind because of what happened between him and his son. His son had punched him good

    Read More

  • Juror 3 Is Guilty In Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose

    850 Words  | 2 Pages

    As the story unfolds, he tries to rush the case and continues to call for votes. He then becomes more frantic when he sees that the other jurors are starting to become less convinced of the defendants guilt. When any of the other jurors contradict Juror 3, he becomes aggressive and insults them commenting, "you're crazy" (241) or "We don't need a sermon" (224). Similarly, if another juror states something trying to prove the minor is innocent, Juror 3 immediately negates their claim and tries make it seem as if they couldn't possibly know what they were talking about. In another situation where the jurors are disputing whether to believe a witness account made by an old man, Juror 9, who is also an elderly man, describes why the evidence may be skewed. Juror 9 explains that he believes the witness may have accidentally

    Read More

  • Uncertainty In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

    980 Words  | 2 Pages

    Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three

    Read More

  • Intolerance And Prejudice In The Play Twelve Angry Men

    1285 Words  | 3 Pages

    Despite knowing how angry the other men would be at him, the 8th juror stood up for the defendant and did what he could to make sure the boy had a fair trial. From the beginning, Juror eight was clearly confident in what he believed in and did not care about how foolish he looked. The confidence he showed brought the other jurors to rethink their vote. Juror nine was the first person to recognize the amount of courage it took for juror eight to stand up against the men. After being the first to change his vote nine explains “This gentleman chose to stand alone against us. That’s his right. It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone even if you believe in something very strongly. He left the verdict up to us. He gambled for support and I gave it to him. I want to hear more. The vote is ten to two.” The 9th juror agreed with the eight juror about wanting justice. By standing up for justice he gave nine the courage to stand up for the same reason. Juror eight continued to be consistent with what he believed in. Never did he

    Read More

  • Prejudice In Tkam

    870 Words  | 2 Pages

    This event in his personal life was dramatically influencing his decision in the jury room, but he was able to overcome his personal prejudice from the efforts of juror 8 “it’s hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this, and no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth” This quote shows juror 8’s understanding towards juror 3 in particular, and in turn allows him to overcome his personal prejudice. The young boy’s social status and childhood upbringing also influenced many of the juror’s perspective on him. The men came with pre conceived ideas about boy, just because he grew up in a slum, and allowed this reason and possibly their own personal reason to obscure their view on the

    Read More

  • Criminal Justice Concepts in 12 Angry Men

    910 Words  | 2 Pages

    This movie goes to show how such crucial facts and minuet evidence if not processed fully and clearly can change the outcome in such a big way. In this jury you have 12 men from all different walks of life, 12 different times, and 12 different personalities. Who have an obligation to come to one conclusion and that's whether or not the young man on trial is guilty of murdering his father or is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Under much frustration and lack of patience these 12 men began to get unruly and unfocused. Throughout this distraction key terms get misused, facts get turned around and more importantly emotions start to cross making it hard for these men to produce a verdict.

    Read More

  • Compare and Contrast Play and Movie Versions of 12 Angry Men

    1039 Words  | 3 Pages

    First off, the settings in the movie are a great deal more fleshed out. In the play, the scene begins with the jurors regarding the judge's final statements concerning the case in the courtroom and then walking out into the jury room. In the movie, the audience is placed in the role of the invisible casual observer, who for perhaps the first 5 minutes of the movie, walks throughout the court building passing other court rooms, lawyers, defendants, security officers, elevators, etc. Not able to remember much about this particular part of the movie, I believe this introductory scene's purpose was to either enhanced the realism of the setting by emphasizing the court building's efficient, business like manner or to provide a timeslot in which to roll the credits for producer, director, stars, etc. The settings aren't only built upon through use of scenery and extras in the movie. Invisible and distant in the play, we see in the movie the judge, bailiff, those witnessing the trial and most importantly of all- the defendant. This is an important change because in the play, we are free to come up with our own unbiased conclusions as to the nature and identity of the defendant, whom we only know to a be a 19 year boy from the slums. Seeing his haggard and worn face in the movie changes all of that, yet for better or worse, it engages the audience deeper into the trial as they surely will sympathize with him and can gain some insight into why, later, Juror 8 does so as well. Of final note in this summary of points concerning the differences in setting, the jurors all mention the heat wave affecting the city when they begin, and as it agitates them, it serves to heighten the tension between each other and their resentment or other feelings towards jury duty. Oh- also lastly, I think we can infer that the movie takes place in Manhattan, New York City.

    Read More

  • Stereotypes In The Play '12 Angry Men' By Reginald Rose

    911 Words  | 2 Pages

    This conveyed the central messages better than the play because in the play you had to envision in your mind (with a bit of imagination) the scene and the juror. In the movie, you could clearly see the situation and actors laid out for you. The actors were able to pack a punch and help you really experience the situation first-hand. People in their everyday lives, face peer pressure and often follow the crowd. It just takes one person to make a difference. It’s easier to stand along side one person rather than alone. By demonstrating the courage to do so you will also earn the respect of others around you. Its important to respect people for who they are in the present, and not who they were in the

    Read More

  • Twelve Angry Men

    1173 Words  | 3 Pages

    Often times within a jury, participants may be tempted to reach a quick verdict in order to get over with it and go home. So, their conclusions are usually flawed, hasty generalizations with no proper judgement behind them. In the play, all the jurors, besides Juror #8, claimed that a “unique” knife was identified as a murder weapon and the boy, or supposed murderer, was seen with it although he had said he lost it. ...

    Read More

  • Comparing and Contrasting Juror 3 and Juror 8 from Twelve Angry Men

    1056 Words  | 3 Pages

    These two jurors are almost the plain opposite of each other. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant man accustomed of forcing his wishes and views upon others. On the other hand, Juror 8 is an honest man who keeps an open mind for both evidence and reasonable doubt. Since these two people are indeed very different, they both have singular thoughts relating to the murder case. Juror 8 is a man who is loyal to justice. In the beginning of the play, he was the only one to vote ‘not guilty’ the first time the twelve men called a vote. Although his personality is reflected on being a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man, he is still a very persistent person who will fight for justice to be done. Juror 8 is a convincing man who presents his arguments well, but can also be seen as manipulative. An example would be when he kept provoking Juror 3 until he finally said “I’m going to kill you" to Juror 8. He did this because he wanted to prove that saying "I’ll kill you" doesn’t necessarily mean that Juror 3 was actually going to kill him. Juror 3 is a totally different character. He is a stubborn man who can be detected with a streak of sad...

    Read More

  • Analysis of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men

    617 Words  | 2 Pages

    Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.

    Read More

  • Stereotypes In Twelve Angry Men

    804 Words  | 2 Pages

    Juror Eight stood up for what he believed in against eleven other jurors, and eventually influenced them all to reach the verdict of not-guilty. At the end of the case, when the jury is about to come to a final decision, Juror Eight says to Juror Three “It’s not your boy. He’s somebody else.

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Persuasive Essay

    445 Words  | 1 Pages

    The problem that has been tormenting the eight juror is that no other jurors, other then the fifth juror agree with him. The eight juror claims that the boy is not guilty, but since everyone believes that he committed the murder, he has to convince them that he's right. Everyone is also accusing him for his opinion, which is making him frustrated.

    Read More

  • Stereotypes In 12 Angry Men

    723 Words  | 2 Pages

    Juror three wanted so badly for the young boy to be guilty that every time any of the witness’s testimonies were questioned or tested, he would not adhere to the facts. With that being said, he would only believe what everyone else beside the boy told him. When the group tested whether the old man actually heard and witnessed what he did, juror three was quick to say that he didn’t care. He didn’t care about time, logic, or reasoning. The last piece of evidence he had that justified his verdict was that the woman witnessed it. He said if all the other evidence was thrown out that last piece was all they needed. When the jury proved that she could have worn glasses and could have been mistaken, he refused to believe that there was any possibility of a mistake because that would make him have to change his verdict. Therefore, he reverted back to the other evidence then realized he couldn’t because he said to throw away the other

    Read More

  • Movie Analysis: Film Analysis Of 12 Angry Men

    1670 Words  | 4 Pages

    Especially in the start when juror#9, the old man votes non guilty in order to extent his support for the protagonist, juror#8. He did that because he felt that juror#8 was the only one standing against the decision and if pitches in, the jury might face it difficult to convince two people, therefore will start looking at the evidences more deeply and clearly. The protagonist influenced every single person in the jury one after the other with his logical capability. He was consistent with his thought of discussing the evidences so that justice is given to the boy. He corners few people in the jury with his logical ability, so that the statements about the case which the jury believed as facts, goes haywire. He as a single person had minority influence in many occasions in the

    Read More

More about 12 Angry Men Juror 8 A Hero

Open Document