Juror #1 originally thought that the boy was guilty. He was convinced that the evidence was concrete enough to convict the boy. He continued to think this until the jury voted the first time and saw that one of the jurors thought that the boy was innocent. Then throughout the movie, all of the jurors were slowly convinced that the boy was no guilty. His first rhetoric appeal used was logos. He based his guilty verdict on the logical information provided in the court room. He continued to feel this way until later in the movie when he changed his appeal to pathos. The decision to change his mind was caused by the other jurors starting to change their minds. As the one juror that felt the boy was innocent continued to try and convince the others that there was a chance that they could all be wrong, most all of the jurors were starting to see the possibility. Every time there was a new reason why he could be innocent, each juror had more to think about. Finally, the argument about the glasses swayed everyone just enough to withdrawal the guilty verdict and set the boy free. My next claim is in regards to the “old man” juror. If it were not for him voting not guilty the second time, the boy would have been found guilty. He said the reason he voted that way was because of that one juror standing up to the other 11 jurors. He felt that everyone needed to hear all of the arguments because they were dealing with a man’s life. Thanks to that man, the boy was saved. His original rhetoric appeal was also logos. He was basing his verdict choice on the logical information given in the court room. He was using all of the testimony and evidence to make what he thought was a logical decision. As the evening went on, I feel that his appeal was changed to ethos because of the juror that felt that he was innocent. He was impressed by this man because he was able to stand in front of the group and stick with his guilty verdict and not be swayed at all. The “old man” stood up for the man by telling everyone that they basically owe it to the boy to listen to all of the arguments.
... I've lived among them all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that. I mean, they're born liars.” In this statement you can clearly tell his prejudice against the kid, just because of where he was raised. Juror # 10 and juror # 3 has prejudice against the kid. Juror # 3 has personal experience with a kid like the accused. “Reminded of his own family's personal crisis, Juror # 3 tells the jurors of his own disrespectful, teen aged boy who hit him on the jaw when he was 16. Now 22 years old, the boy hasn't been seen for two years, and the juror is embittered: "Kids! Ya work your heart out."” This is a direct example of juror # 3’s prejudice against the accused. When prejudice was in effect in the movie, it clouded the judgments of the jurors that were prejudice against the boy just because he was raised in the slums.
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
As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate and seems to be somehow personally involved with the case. At one point, he tells the other jurors about an argument between him and his son. Juror 3 and his son had an argument which made his son run away. When his son returned to apologize, Juror 3 hit him for leaving the first time thus leading him to run away once more. He has not seen his son in two years and this has left him somewhat bitter inside. His anger toward his supposed ungrateful son is projected toward the young man on trial. Juror 3 has no concern for the life of the defendant. He makes it clear that he would have been an executioner and would have pulled the switch on the boy himself. His personal troubles have imposed on his ability to come to a verdict.
What do we know about the criminal justice system? The criminal justice system is a series of organizations that are involved in apprehending, prosecuting, defending, sentencing, and jailing those involved in crimes; along with the system, regular citizens are summoned for jury duty in order to contemplate whether the defendant is guilty or not. It appears to be a rather secure, fair, and trustworthy system; one that should work relatively well, right? Unfortunately, the criminal justice system is an ultra-costly and ultra-punitive; the system is neither protecting victims nor rehabilitating lawbreakers. For example, trial by jury; there is usually a small amount of people in the jury who actually considered that another being’s life is on the line. In trial by jury, the court is literally trusting the life of another being in the hands of twelve strangers who need to argue with each other like kids until they conclude a verdict. In the play, Twelve Angry Men, a group of men are summoned for jury duty and almost all of the men would rather conclude a verdict immediately and leave; except for one, Juror #8. He managed to detain the group by requesting for a discussion of the murder trial before voting “guilty” or “not guilty.” Not once did Juror #8 allow the others to influence him unless they had a valid explanation.
...ted by peer pressure. At the end of the play, after all the other jurors joined up with Juror 8, Juror 3 was the only one who still voted ‘guilty’. This time, Juror 3’s perseverance collapsed and he finally voted on ‘not guilty’. Juror 3 is obviously not as brave as Juror 8 as to stand up for his singular thought on the crime. A reason for this might be because he doesn’t have the intelligence to use good arguments to prove his stance.
He has a problem with juror #8. He always tries to contradict juror #8. Every time juror #8 says something, he always has something to say to go against him. He has a lot of personal background that clouds his decisions on the boy. His personal background is that he has a kid that did a similar thing to him and that’s why it was hard for him to see the evidence clearly.
Juror 8 convinces the other jurors, one by one, to analyze the evidence, and their grudging review of the facts slowly convinces them that there is a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt. The jurors never find the truth? the identity of the true murderer is never discovered? but justice occurs within the institution of the court with the jury's verdict of not guilty. This just result is brought about because one juror, motivated by his respect for the law and its processes, is able to defy the peer pressure of the jury room in his quest for the truth.
The results were 10 to 2, so obviously someone else changed his mind. They declared the boy innocent because the evidence was not enough to send the boy to the electric chair. The Consensus was the best solution because after analyzing all the evidence, they called to vote many times to get a final unanimous decision of not guilty. I think at the time we are judging a person, we can’t let our emotions guide us because it won’t really take us to the real solution of the problem.
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.
We hear many discuss how the case is open and shut, preconceived notions about the accused and that more than one juror wants to get it over with as quickly as possible. The first vote for a verdict is taken and while some hesitate to raise their hand, all but one votes guilty. Davis is the only one to raise his hand for not guilty. When men question, make a few snide comments and ask if he really believes he’s not guilty he simply states, “ I don’t know.” In the conversation that follows he admits it wasn’t easy to raise his hand for not guilty but it’s not easy to send the boy off to die without talking about it. He further states to juror #7 I am not trying to change your mind. This is an excellent choice of words that in many ways set the tone for everything that followed. He is not confrontational, doesn’t say I’m right and you are wrong but simply asks for a
After reviewing this week’s episodes of serial, and given our topic, I found that the Rhetorical Appeals are directly linked to the court cases. These Rhetorical Appeals (Ethos, Pathos, and Logos), are used throughout both cases. From Jay’s case, it’s clear that Pathos and Ethos are two main elements supporting his defense. However in Adnan’s case, Logos was the prevalent appeal when defending his innocence.
He stereotypes the boy: “That goddamn rotten kid. I know him. What they’re like” (page 71). He already convicts the defendant in the very early until end and his prejudice attitude makes him a hyperbolic stubborn man. He wishes to punish that defendant for the depression his own son inflected on him. He personally longs for that punishment, not because of fact. Another point that should be noticed is that 3rd juror’s bias on children makes him fail in analyzing every piece of evidence and view them from only negative side, which leads to his failure of deliberating
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.
...irrespective of what majority says. Your participation has the ability to change what others think completely. Due to Jury number 8's participation, the ratio of 1:11 votes(not guilty:guilty) changed to an over all vote of not guilty. Communication doesn't happen non-verbally right at the beginning stages of the group development. If the movie was “11 Angry Men” with Jury number 8 excluded, the other jurors would've done just given vote once, and decided the fate of the boy. Why did the group make its decision not guilty? The answer is plain and simple: “Due to group participation and interaction.” If you were in the place of juror number 8 or any other juror, would you've spoken for the boy or not?
He spoke up and stood up for himself even when he was alone. Although the eleven jurors plead the boy guilty, they were being non rational. They did not have enough evidence to accuse the boy guilty they just based it on the little boy’s culture and where he came from. Therefore, the architect saw things differently and wanted true justice and fairness. He wanted the other men to be reasonable and to look at other outcomes that could possibly not make the boy guilty. The architect was very effective, some of the traits he displayed were creativity, desire to lead, fair-mindedness, rapid information processing, self-confidence, trustworthy, and a democratic leader. His leadership style was a democratic leader because he allowed others to participate in the decision making rather than talking over them. A democratic leader participates with the group in deliberating and decision making members are empowered to actively participate. That is how it took place in the film, all twelve men had a say in everything, and participated. The architect was very inspiring and influential, he made other really think. As a result, they did display characteristics of a successful