Juror #3: In many ways, he is the opponent to the basically composed Juror #8. Juror #3 talks about the simplicity of the case and the obvious guilt of the defendant as soon as he enters the jury room. He loses his temper easily and flies off the handle when Juror #8 and other jurors disagree with his opinions. He believes that the defendant is absolutely guilty until the conclusion of the movie. His poor relationship with his own son may have been a factor in his resistance to the reasonable doubt issues that were brought up. During his last outburst of the movie, he throws his notebook on the table and a picture of he and his son falls out. Extremely distressed, he begins to cry and tears the photo to pieces. Only when he comes to terms with this burden can he finally admit to reasonable doubt and vote not guilty.
Juror #11: As a foreign refugee, Juror #11 may have witnessed terrible things before coming to the United States. That is probably why he feels so strongly about administering justice as a jury member. He expresses a deep appreciation for democracy and America’s legal system. After Juror #6 changes his vote to not guilty because he just wants the whole thing to be over, Juror #11 berates him for his careless attitude about the life or death of a young man.
Juror #9: A mild, gentle old man, he is the first to agree with Juror #8, deciding that there is not enough evidence to immediately sentence the young man to death and that by changing his vote there will be more discussion. Also, Juror #9 is the first to draw attention to Juror #10’s racist attitude, saying, “What this man says is very dangerous.” Later, identifying with the old man who was the downstairs witness for the prosecution, he suggests that the man may ha...
... middle of paper ...
... bed that night.
The existence of reasonable doubt is important because it stands to keep the innocent from being found guilty. It affected the verdict when it changed from 11-1 for conviction to a unanimous verdict for acquittal. The jurors were not able to decide he was guilty without reasonable doubt, so acquittal was the only verdict possible.
I gave the movie a B. It was a bit over dramatic for my taste. The inclusion of information about the young man’s past juvenile record wouldn't have been allowed. Jurors # 3 and # 10 were so prejudiced that their attitudes would have gotten them rejected during voir dire. And it was wrong for Juror # 8 to present evidence like a defense attorney by re-enacting the old man's walk to the front door or to investigate on his own by purchasing the knife. The heated interactions between some of the jurors seemed exaggerated.
The jurors took a vote and saw the ratio at eleven for guilty and only one for not guilty. When they repeatedly attacked his point of view, his starting defense was that the boy was innocent until proven guilty, not the opposite as the others had seen it. After Henry Fonda instilled doubt in the mind of another juror, the two worked together to weaken the barriers of hatred and prejudice that prevented them from seeing the truth. The jurors changed their minds one at a time until the ratio stood again at eleven to one, this time in favor of acquittal. At this point, the jurors who believed the defendant was not guilty worked together to prove to the one opposing man that justice would only be found if they returned a verdict of not guilty. They proved this man wrong by using his personal experiences in life to draw him into a series of deadly contradictions.
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
12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are the jury for an 18 year old accused of murder. The judge states in the opening scene that it is a premeditated murder in the 1st degree, if found guilty will automatically receive the death penalty. The 18 year old male is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade, in their home. The prosecutors have several eye witness testimonies, and all of the evidence that they could need to convict the 18 year old male. In the movie it takes place on the hottest day of the year in New York City. There are 12 jurors whom are to decide if the evidence is enough to convict the teen of murder in the first degree. In the first initial vote it is 11-1. The only way that the jurors could turn in their votes was if there was unanimous vote either guilty or not guilty among the 12 jurors. As the movie progressed the jurors ended up changing their minds as new evidence was brought to their attention by simple facts that were overlooked by the police and prosecutors in the initial investigation. Tempers were raised, and words flew, there was prejudice and laziness of a few of the jurors that affected the amount of time it took to go over all of the eye witness testimonies and evidence. The eye witness testimonies ended up being proven wrong and some of the evidence was thrown out because it was put there under false pretense.
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
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
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.
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...
Juror number eight is the main protagonist, he also a reserved with his thoughts, yet very strategic with them. He is the defender of the down trodden victim. He has a calm rational approach to everything and he reveals the gaps in the testimonies placed against the defendant. These examples would be; that the old man couldn’t have seen the boy run out of the house, as the old man had a limp and therefore could not make it to the door in time. The old lady across the road could have never saw the boy stab his father, due to she wasn’t wearing her glasses and it was pitch black. Number eight is a man that s...
Juror #3 is very biased against the 19-year-old boy that is being tried, and this affects all of his thoughts and actions regarding the case. He has this bias because his own son hit him in the jaw and ran away from home at the age of 15: “I’ve got a kid…when he was fifteen he hit me in the face…I haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids! You work your heart out [but it’s no use] (21).”According to this quote from the text, this juror condemns all teenagers and feels resentment towards them. He especially feels strongly about the boy being tried, because the boy grew up in the slums, and this juror is also biased against these people who grew up there. It is because of these feelings that he is strongly cemented in his vote of guilty.
It was not a good idea to take a vote without a discussion, because the other jurors do not know other opinions that might change their mind. The eighth juror voted not guilty because he did think about all of the details that happened the night of the murder. It turned out that the jurors had over looked a few
The film 12 Angry Men depicts the challenge faced by a jury as they deliberate the charges brought against an 18-year-old boy for the first-degree murder of his father. Their task is to come to an impartial verdict, based on the testimony that was heard in court. The group went through the case over and over while personal prejudices, personality differences, and tension mounted as the process evolved. While the scorching hot weather conditions and personal affairs to tend to led the juror to make quick and rash decisions, one juror convinced them the fate of the 18 year old was more important than everyone’s problems an convinced them that they could not be sure he was guilty. Juror three took the most convincing. After fighting till he
The jurors had several conflicts in disagreeing with each other and it didn't help that they would shout over one another. The very first conflict is when juror 8 voted not guilty against the 11 guilty votes. The other 11 jurors don't seem to want to hear this man out; they don't want to hear why he has voted not guilty. Some of these men, jurors 3 and 7, just want to get this case over with so they can get on with their lives. They don't think it is imperative enough to look over the evidence and put themselves in the place of the defendant. They get upset with this man and try to get him to vote guilty.
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
Seemingly juror ten exists not only for conflict, but to demonstrate to the audience that personal biases may affect the way the jury thinks. Being one in a room of twelve individuals, juror ten truly withholds the essence of an angry
One surprising fact would be that the case would’ve come to a fast conclusion of a guilty verdict had it not been for Juror number eight disagreeing. He had a firm belief that the kid was innocent that he would stop at nothing to convince the other jurors he had a valid point. Yet, society has greatly changed and to come across someone so influential is rare. For starters, a jury trial is meant to represent the community in which the trial is taking place and it should include an equal amount of diversity compared to the community. Since this case took place in New York, it is impractical to have an all-white male jury today.