12 Angry Men Dramatic Monologue

500 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Dramatic monologue essays

Did I just do that? Did I just stop juror three? I can’t believe it; how did I have the nerve to do that? oh no he is going to hit me I’m sure of it. However I really liked it when I stopped him and taking charge, like I didn't know what i was doing. I rose up to the occasion and and just did it. So this is what bravery feels like I kind of liked it but I don’t think I will experiencing that feeling again any time soon. But sweet mother of jesus!! Look at his face juror three is so pissed like his face is as red as a tomato I hope he will calm down or something might happen like; I actually thought he was about to attack juror eight he was shouting and yelling at him. Good thing I wasn’t the one that started the fight with him or I would have been knocked out faster than anything. But that feeling I had it really felt like I was in control of juror three. I calmed a vicious ravenous short tempered beast. I should honestly stand up right now and start running around screaming with happiness. But I won't do that or I will be dragged out of the jury room, and I won’t be able to stop juror They have to change their minds especially the third juror because he is the only one who really wants the kid to receive justice even if he didn’t kill his own father. I need to do something to change their minds I am a shy young kid, I really have no say in this. But I think that they are starting to loosen up a bit like two more jurors are not saying innocent which is good and the only ones that are saying guilty are three and ten. However, they are really serious about putting this kid in jail. Everyone is shouting and yelling but finally ten gave up and is saying innocent. Juror three is still not giving up he is still angry his face hasn’t changed at all he must be really pissed at all of us for betraying him. But finally he in the end said not guilty and then walked

Show More
Related

  • 12 Angry Men Essay

    595 Words  | 2 Pages

    This report is on a movie called, “12 Angry Men.” The movie is about 12 men that are the jury for a case where a young man is being accused of killing his father. A major conflict that is very obvious is the disagreement on whether the young boy was guilty or innocent. After court when all of the men sat down to begin their discussion Courtney B. Vance (#1) Took charge and respectfully was now the leader. He asked what everyone’s votes were and all of the men except for Jack Lemmon (#8) voted the young man was guilty. Because Jack was the odd one that chose differently than the rest of the men, all of the other Jures, were defensive about the evidence just because they were all so confused. Courtney B. Vance took charge once again and calmly stated that everyone has their rights and lets have everyone explain the reasons why they thing the child is guilty or not guilty. Ossie Davis (#2) explained why he voted guilty. While explaining this he was very calm and wise. HE handled conflicts in the same way. Next was George C. Schott (#3) He also voted guilty. George was very st...

    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

  • Prejudice in 12 Angry Men

    1000 Words  | 2 Pages

    ... 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.

    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

  • A Member of the Jury in To Kill a Mockingbird

    657 Words  | 2 Pages

    The courthouse was crowded, all seats were taken and many were standing in the back. It was silent, no one spoke, not even a baby cried out. There was the Judge sitting in the front of the room, the defendant, the solicitor, and the jury. I was a member of the jury that day. Everyone knew the truth, the defendant was innocent, and the evidence that was established was supportive and clear. The jury’s decision however, was not based on evidence, but on race. A jury is supposed to put their beliefs aside and make a decision based on the information given during the trial. Jury members must do their duty and do what is right. I tried to do what was right, but all the other members of the jury were blind. They chose to convict because of skin color than actual evidence from the case. I wanted to avoid this disease, but it is easily spread from one person to another. It made me angry that an innocent man was convicted for something he did not even do. He was convicted because of his skin color and nothing else. When the judge asked us to leave the courtroom to make a decision, we stayed o...

    Read More

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

    1056 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...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.

    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

    I do not think the third juror is a sadist. He just wants this whole thing to be over, and he is siding with the bigger side, so if the life of the kid goes into a vote, he can be on the winning side. The eight juror is still stuck up about no one but the fifth and eleventh juror joining his

    Read More

  • Twelve Angry Men

    642 Words  | 2 Pages

    The three jurors I picked are juror #10, juror #7, and juror #8.The first juror I want to write about is #10. Juror #10 was using a lot of sarcasm, whenever he was trying to prove his point, or prove someone else wrong. I think that this method of peer pressure is one of the most powerful ones. I believes so, because when you are embarrassed in front of 11 other people (in this case jurors) you do not know, really lowers your self-esteem. It may lower it to the point where you will say guilty, eve though deep down inside, you will feel that the person is innocent.

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men: Conflict in the Courtroom

    587 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Role Of Justice In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

    1441 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Analysis Of The Negotiation Process In 12 Angry Men

    1170 Words  | 3 Pages

    However, juror 3 did not maintain control after discussions with juror 8. For example, when juror 8 made a personal attack on juror 3, juror 3 lost his cool, requiring restraint from the other jurors to the point of yelling, “Let me go! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” (Flouri & Fitsakis, 2007, p.459). His emotional intelligence (Budjac Corvette, 2007, p. 29) was a superior negotiation tactic throughout the deliberation process.

    Read More

  • Analysis of 12 Angry Men

    1246 Words  | 3 Pages

    In viewing 12 Angry Men, we see face to face exactly what man really is capable of being. We see different views, different opinions of men such as altruism, egoism, good and evil. It is no doubt that human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics, which make them unique. It is safe to say that our actions, beliefs, and choices separate us from animals and non-livings. The 20th century English philosopher, Martin Hollis, once said, “Free will – the ability to make decisions about how to act – is what distinguishes people from non-human animals and machines 1”. He went to describe human beings as “self conscious, rational, creative. We can fall in love, write sonnets or plan for tomorrow. We are capable of faith, hope and charity, and for that matter, of envy, hated and malice. We know truth from error, right from wrong 2.” Human nature by definition is “Characteristics or qualities that make human beings different from anything else”. With this said, the topic of human nature has been around for a very long time, it is a complex subject with no right or wrong answer. An American rabbi, Samuel Umen, gave examples of contradictions of human nature in his book, Images of Man. “He is compassionate, generous, loving and forgiving, but also cruel, vengeful, selfish and vindictive 3”. Existentialism by definition is, “The belief that existence comes before essence, that is, that who you are is only determined by you yourself, and not merely an accident of birth”. A French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, is the most famous and influential 20th - century existentialist. He summed up human nature as “existence precedes essence”. In his book, Existentialism and Human Emotions, he explained what he meant by this. “It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will be something, and he himself will have made what he will be 4”. After watching 12 Angry Men, the prominent view on human nature that is best portrayed in the movie is that people are free to be whatever they want because as Sartre said, “people create themselves every moment of everyday according to the choices they make 5”.

    Read More

  • Court Observation Essay

    968 Words  | 2 Pages

    At 1:30 p.m. on a Monday afternoon, I entered the San Bernardino Justice Center in Downtown San Bernardino for my first court visit. After passing through the metal screen detectors and making my way up to courtroom number 19, I opened the courtroom doors plated “Judge Harold Wilson” and nervously checked in with the bailiff and the court clerk. The judge, judicial clerk and two attorneys were already in the room chatting. I was surprised to hear the friendliness in their tone and conversation they all were having regarding their personal lives. The attorneys from opposing sides were chatting like they were best friends. I asked the bailiff, “If this is normal?”, he said, “Yes it is! and whatever they show on TV is not reality.” Soon after our conversation, the bailiff brought in the defendant. He was well dressed, black male, probably around the age of 35. He sat down next to the defense lawyer and the chit-chatting resumed. After 20 minutes of laughter and constant bantering, the judge asked the bailiff to bring the jury inside. As the bailiff walked outside to call the jury in, the judge went to his chambers.

    Read More

More about 12 Angry Men Dramatic Monologue

Open Document