Juror 8

677 Words2 Pages

There are lots of different types of people in one city. Jury duty allows them to get together and participate in discussing the freedoms and rights of their peers or the one being tried. In the play “Twelve Angry Men,” by Reginald Rose, twelve men with different personalities try to persuade each other towards their opinion. Juror Eight is the most effective because he is able to manipulate the other jurors with his calm, respectful, open-mindedness, and rational ways.
Juror Eight is calm and respectful which helps him to manipulate the other jurors. When a person is calm they tend to know how to control what they say and do in tense and serious situations. Juror Three rages with anger and threatens Juror Eight that he is going to kill him but all Juror Eight did in response was say, “You don’t really mean you’ll kill me, do you?” in a soft and sincere voice. By doing this allows people to see he is able to maintain composure when things get a little tense. The meaning of calm is steadiness of the mind under stress which in this situation is very stressful. Most people would show a sense of fear or anger, but Juror Eight remained in the same state. This allows the other jurors to feel that they can talk to him and he would be understanding towards them.
Juror Eight gives everyone a chance to speak or have a say to what they are talking about. People recieve a sort of comfort and respect that they may not always get. He does this when they are talking about the el tracks. Juror Eight asks, “What do you think?” to Juror Five who has not said anything. Juror Five says, “About ten or twelve seconds- maybe” in response to how long the el train would take. Juror Eight respects his answer and allows Juror Five the opportunity to s...

... middle of paper ...

...nd the situation of the case to create a conclusion that will help decided whether the kid is guilty or innocent. He can use this ability to his advantage and persuade the other jurors his opinion. Making the jurors feel that they can trust him and believe he knows what he is talking about by being rational.
Throughout the play “Twelve Angry Men,” Juror Eight is able to persuade and convince the other jurors with his calm, open-mindedness, respectful and rational personality. He was very strategic in a way that he must have planned the whole things out because if he was not the way he was and was yelling at everyone about what he thought no one would have listened to him. Everyone would have been too frightened to say anything. They could have punished an innocent boy just because no one would respect, act calm, have an open-mind and be rational about everything.

Show More
Related

  • Justice was Served in the Film Twelve Angry Men

    386 Words  | 1 Pages

    In the film Twelve Angry Men, I believe justice was served. Without juror number eight, however, the outcome most assuredly would have been different. The subtle force and confidence that he displayed allowed the narrow minds of the other eleven jurors to be broadened.

    Read More

  • Nine Ten by Warren Leight

    658 Words  | 2 Pages

    The major conflict in the play, Nine Ten by Warren Leight is jury duty. The first thing people think when they hear the words “jury duty” is sitting in a courthouse all day and night disagreeing whether a person is guilty or innocent. For most, the immediate thought when getting that letter out of the mailbox is that they do not have time. Their lives are full enough with running the kids to school and to after school activities. Their next thought may be, ‘but I’m going out of town soon’, just because a select few are going to jury duty does not mean that time will stand still and wait for their duty to be done. The last thing to cross most people’s mine, is that jury duty is a right, a civic duty, to allow a fellow man to speak to a member of his peers. However, just because most people dislike jury duty does not mean everyone does, some people may take great pride in deciding the fate of another person.

    Read More

  • Uncertainty In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

    980 Words  | 2 Pages

    Reasonable doubt is defined “as uncertainty as to the guilt of a criminal defendant.” This ideology has been the basis for justice systems in many modern countries for centuries. A panel of twelve men and women who have the immense responsibility of choosing the fate for one person. This principle is the basis for Reginald Rose’s satire, Twelve Angry Men. A play that describes the scene of a New York jury room, where twelve men have to decide between life and death for a inner-city teen, charged with killing his father. These jurors have to sift through the facts and the fiction to uncover the truth about the case and some truths about themselves. Reginald Rose outlines through the actions of juror number three, that no matter the consequences,

    Read More

  • Prejudice in 12 Angry Men

    1000 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Intolerance And Prejudice In The Play Twelve Angry Men

    1285 Words  | 3 Pages

    Twelve angry men is a play about twelve jurors who have to decide if the defendant is guilty of murdering his father, the play consist of many themes including prejudice, intolerance, justice , and courage. The play begins with a judge explaining to the jurors their job and how in order for the boy to be sent to death the vote must be unanimous. The jurors are then locked into a small room on a hot summer day. At first, it seems as though the verdict is obvious until juror eight decides to vote not guilty. From that moment on, the characters begin to show their true colors. Some of the characters appear to be biased and prejudice while others just want justice and the truth. Twelve Angry Men Despite many of the negative qualities we see

    Read More

  • Criminal Justice Concepts in 12 Angry Men

    910 Words  | 2 Pages

    Yet with the help of one aged yet wise and optimistic man he speaks his opinion, one that starts to not change however open the minds of the other eleven men on the jury. By doing this the man puts out a visual picture by verbally expressing the facts discussed during the trial, he uses props from the room and other items the he himself brought with him during the course of the trial. Once expressed the gentleman essentially demonstrate that perhaps this young man on trial May or may not be guilty. Which goes to show the lack of research, and misused information that was used in the benefit of the prosecution. For example when a certain factor was brought upon the trail; that being timing, whether or not it took the neighbor 15 seconds to run from his chair all the way to the door. By proving this right or wrong this man Juror #4 put on a demonstration, but first he made sure his notes were correct with the other 11 jurors. After it was

    Read More

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

    1039 Words  | 3 Pages

    This essay will compare and contrast the protagonist/antagonist's relationship with each other and the other jurors in the play and in the movie versions of Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men. There aren't any changes made to the key part of the story, but yet the minor changes made in making the movie adaptation produce a different picture than what one imagines when reading the drama in the form of a play. 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.

    Read More

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

    911 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the play, 12 Angry Men, written by the well-known writer and producer, Reginald Rose, sets the scene in a stuffy jury room on an extremely hot day where 12 jurors must deem whether a boy is guilty for the murder of his father. The jurors struggle to reach a unanimous decision, as tension between the jurors builds up. The author delivers several clear messages through his play such as standing up for what you believe in, and always pursuing the truth. Often times personal feelings, prejudices, and fear of voicing opinions prevent the truth from being exposed.

    Read More

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

    1056 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the play “Twelve Angry men”, the story line presents a variety of perspectives and opinions between twelve very different men. Some are more likely to be pointed out as prejudice, and others are more focused on reaching fair justice. Clearly, it is quite difficult for different people to vote ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ in unity when coming to a fair decision. In all of the twelve jurors, I have chosen Juror 3 and Juror 8 for contrast and comparison. I believe that Juror number 3 is a very opinionated man, with more differences than similarities comparing with Juror number 8.

    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

  • Leadership in 12 Angry Men

    1000 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the film 12 Angry Men, a group of twelve jurors are deciding the fate of a young boy accused of murdering his father. Throughout the juries dilleration, one man exhibits all of the qualities of leadership. This man is juror number 8 played by Henry Fonda. Fonda not only exhibits the the 10 qualities of a leader but he uses these qualities to lead the entire jury to a vote of not guilty (Fonda & Lumet, 1957).

    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

    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

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Courage Analysis

    1026 Words  | 3 Pages

    From the very beginning of 12 Angry Men, we are shown a jury unevenly divided, eleven of the men voting for guilty, and one voting for not guilty. This

    Read More

  • Analysis Of The Negotiation Process In 12 Angry Men

    1170 Words  | 3 Pages

    Juror 8 utilized emotional intelligence in relating to the other 11 jurors and effectively influencing them to change their votes. Emotional intelligence is defined by Psychology Today as the "ability to identify and manage your own emotions and the emotions of others" ("Emotional Intelligence," n.d.). Using emotional intelligence, juror 8 maintained his own emotions and remained calm. He also used emotional intelligence to draw out the emotions in others, which ultimately led to influencing the jurors by creating doubts in their minds regarding the verdict. In "Minority Matters," the authors point out that juror 8 "senses that juror 3 is losing credibility with the others as well as his temper" (Flouri & Fitsakis, 2007, p. 459). Juror 8 began to antagonize juror 3, pushing him to angrily yell that he will kill juror 8. In response, juror 8 stated, "You don 't really mean that" (Flouri & Fitsakis, 2007, p. 459). Juror 8 used juror 3 's emotional outburst to prove the statement could be made without following through on the action. The results of this action caused juror 8 to gain more credibility and also more votes for not

    Read More

More about Juror 8

Open Document