1. Discuss some positions and emotions that are displayed by the jurors.
Observing all the jurors, they all have different thoughts and belief about why they are truly there to determine the young boys fate. Juror seven, the individual who was obsessed with going to a baseball game, seemed not to care about the boys fate, and was self-centered. Then there were some who were so focused on facts said in court, and would not look at the circumstances surrounding the facts, for example: that there was only one switch knife like that in the world, however, that was proven wrong. Juror three was overcome by entire case, because of his son running away two years before, because the juror beat him “until he was a man.” The tenth juror allowed his prejudice mind to effect his decision, it was not until the end that he knew what he was saying was racists and held no facts (everyone is human). Juror twelve made me the most upset because he was easily bullied into a different decision every time someone talked; he truly was playing both sides.
2. Name several standards or benchmarks jurors utilized to base guilt or innocence. What influenced using those standards?
Juror two, based strictly off of facts, opinions, and the current discussions occurring. The third juror believed he was guilty because of his past experiences with his son, and his emotions were revealed because he hates himself for hurting his son. Many of the jurors who initially joined juror eight, was because they were starting to doubt if he was truly guilty and they feared killing an innocent boy. The seventh juror based everything off of how fast he could get out of the room to get to the baseball game. The racist juror number ten believed all people of the boy’s race g...
... middle of paper ...
...e young boy deserved. Comparing juror eight to many of the other jurors, the other jurors were quick to point fingers, accusing other of changing their mind other simple words; the jurors were scared to stand out and be different than the majority.
8. What facilitation skills were used?
One main skill was the simple, taking turns; each juror had the opportunity to speak their opinion, and try to convince others to join their side. As we saw in the end juror eight convinced the other eleven that the young boy was innocent, due to the fact that the “facts” were all a little fuzzy. The main goal was to have group of jurors all agree on either innocent or guilty and it can not be a hung jury. Some jurors really wanted to just vote and be completed with the task, while others like to investigate the young boy’s case a little deeper than what occurred in the courtroom.
... 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.
The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “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.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground
Juror 6 seems to be part of one of the characters’ whose intentions exhibit otherwise. He proclaims vociferously, “It’s pretty obvious, I mean, I was convinced from the first day”. This sentiment provides compelling evidence as to what the Juror’s intentions and perspectives were, towards the alleged sixteen-year-old. In addition, an important factor that can be taken into consideration is the factor of civic responsibility, which he didn’t uphold properly. In fact, it was proved to have biased, prejudiced and pre-conceptualised
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.
However, in Twelve Angry Men, Juror Eight defies prejudices in his own beliefs, and eventually in the final verdict. When the eleven jurors are asking the Eighth Juror why he voted “not guilty”, he responds with “It’s just that we’re talking about somebody’s life here. I mean, we can’t decide in five minutes. Suppose we’re wrong?” (12). Even if the Eighth Juror may think that the boy might have actually killed his father, doesn’t mean he did just because the boy grew up in the slums and is a tough kid. No matter where the boy is from or what he looks like, his life is on the line. Thus, don’t jump to conclusions too quickly. Later on, when the jurors are talking about the knife that the boy had, Juror Eight was “saying it’s possible that the boy lost the knife and that someone else stabbed his father with a similar knife.” (22). Just because a violent boy who grew up in a violent family had a knife, doesn’t necessarily mean he is guilty of murder. Thus, things may not always be the way they seem, so don’t judge a book by its
Juror eight is a smart and patient man who wants to seek justice despite the obstacles he has to face. For example, juror eight says “it’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” This shows that he is level headed and aware that whatever is decided in that room will have life or death consequences. Juror eight proves his credibility to his peers and is detested by juror three because of his determination to prove the boy innocent. His final vote, not guilty, remains unchanged throughout the play because he believes that no matter the race, age, or background of the defendant, everyone deserves a fair trial. As you can see, juror eight is a honest man whose integrity and confidence allows him them to open their minds and see the truth.
Juror Eight was to first to fully overcome any bias and really look at the entire case with perspective. While all the other jurors voted guilty purely because the boy was raised in a slum and was Puerto Rican, Juror Eight was determined to work out the entire truth. He was willing to go against eleven other men, who were not only grumpy but quite violent, to look at the facts and compare them with other evidence. “It’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first (Pg 315),” says Juror Eight when asked why he voted not
The story begins outside a courthouse in New York City. An 18-year-old boy is being prosecuted for allegedly stabbing his father to death. A weary judge discusses with the jury and informs that they must decide wether or not the boy is guilty of his crime, he also informs that should they find him guilty, he will be sentenced to death. In the beginning, eleven of the twelve jurors find the boy guilty, however, through intense discussion, the remaining eleven are persuaded to a not-guilty verdict. “Twelve Angry Men” highlights many social psychology concepts, specifically: conformity, persuasion, and fundamental attribution.
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.
Mention the pros and cons of our jury system and possible alternatives of it. Also, identify the group dynamics of the jury members
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
... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.
The quietness and patience juror 8 displayed caused tension amongst the other jurors creating careful and adequate (Flouri & Fitsakis, 2007, p.453) deliberations. Juror 8 's circle of influence (Covey, 2013) directly influenced the other jurors’ circle of concern (Covey, 2013) when forcing them to question their thought process. Juror 8 chose a collaborative negotiation (Budjac Corvette, 2007, p. 63) method when deliberating with the other jurors immediately handing down guilty verdicts for the defendant. Furthermore, juror 8 used his ACES to help the other jurors cross the creek (Budjac Corvette, 2007, p.