Juror In 12 Angry Men

678 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Racial discrimination in the justice system

The 12 angry men is a movie about a boy who was brought up to court as a suspect in the murder case of his father by stabbing him with a knife. The movie has 12 jurors who are given time to go into a small room and deliberate on the case. Of the 12 jurors only one of them votes not guilty (8th Juror). Hence they have to discuss the case. The other jurors after voting try to win the 8th juror to their side and act aggressively towards him but he sticks to his vote of not guilty. This leads them to the case discussion. They go around juror by juror to put across their views and thought on why they find the defendant guilty.
• Juror number 1 has good leadership skills. He is serious about his duties. He makes sure everyone sits down and starts off the discussion by giving all the jurors numbers followed by letting the make their votes. He is authoritative and fair to everyone. He is a sensitive person especially when someone objects to his control. He displays self-confident we can see that when he steps up to be foreman.
• Juror number 2 is a person who lacks courage and confidence. He is easily pulled to other people’s opinion and he is not even able to explain his own thoughts.
• Juror number 3 is trying to play games like cards during the discussion which means he does not care about the case and it is wrong to play around during a serious session like that, when someone’s life is at stack. Juror number 3 is high tempered and often gets mad really fast. We can see this especially with juror number 8 and also the other jurors when they do not agree with him. He is also hostile to juror number eight. He is really emotional and basing the case on his experience with his son. He is also violent when he reacted to the other jurors co...

... middle of paper ...

...bout racism and recognizing his racist attitude.
• Juror number 10 he is judgmental and racist. We can see that when he made a racist comment against the defendant say “they are all born liars”. He tries to show how small minded he is making all the jurors dislike him. He is a bitter person and has an irrational attitude.
• Juror number 11 I can say he is patriotic and appreciative. He talks about how much he loves and appreciate American justice system.
• Juror number 12 he is not even concentrating or paying attention, he is trying to get ideas about his marketing camping which is not part of the subject why they are there. He is also very impatient; he wants the meeting to end already so that he can go back to his social life. He is arrogant the way he talks to other jurors. Juror 12 just like number 3 is not taking his role seriously by trying to play cards too.

Show More
Related

  • Juror 3 In 12 Angry Men

    380 Words  | 1 Pages

    Juror Three was the main antagonist of the story and was also the last one to change his vote to “not guilty.” Throughout “Twelve Angry Men”, he was very aggressive to anyone who did not share the same opinions as him. He stated this to Juror Eight after he was called a sadist, “Shut up! {Lunges at Eight, but is caught by two of the JURORS and is held. He struggles as EIGHT watches calmly. Then he screams.} Let me go! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” Also, it was very hard for Juror Three to change his mind. We can see this in the book and the movie. Although the facts he stated were all disproven, he would go back to them. Also, it was hard for him to change his mind because of what happened between him and his son. His son had punched him good

    Read More

  • Comparing The Rodney King Trial And The Play Twelve Angry Men

    1369 Words  | 3 Pages

    Juror Five came from the bottom and knows what it’s like. No matter how hard he tried he will always know the feeling of being on the bottom. and at some point he will always be reminded “I used to play in a backyard full of garbage, maybe it still smells on me”(7). Juror Five knows who he is and what he stands for. Now, how he would vote on the Rodney King case I can honestly say that, I don't really know.

    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

  • 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

  • The Importance Of Stereotypes In 12 Angry Men

    745 Words  | 2 Pages

    Juror number twelve can’t decide what side he is on, so arrows going back and forth would fit his personality. He tends to go with the crowd and doesn’t have much to say; hence, the diagram above shows the arrows are smaller than the other two shapes. At the beginning, he was not taking the case

    Read More

  • The Negative Impact of the CSI Franchise

    1812 Words  | 4 Pages

    Shelton, Hon. Donald E., Gregg Barak, and Kim S. Young. “A Study of Juror Expectations and

    Read More

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

    1056 Words  | 3 Pages

    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...

    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

  • 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

    This is a quote I picked to illustrate sarcasm skillfully used by #10: "You're a pretty smart fellow, aren't you?" I think this one sentence could really put anyone down, and make anyone feel embarrassed, and maybe stupid. Another juror I decided to write about is #7. He was muscle flexing most of the time. Muscle flexing means, he was raising his voice, even screaming at everyone, as if he was the boss. Whenever #8 was trying to ...

    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

    844 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

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

    1441 Words  | 3 Pages

    Yet, the justice system is inevitably susceptible to a flaw, as personal prejudices slip through the initial screening and become apparent in the jury room. In Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men the jury systems imperfections are addressed. He demonstrates the atmosphere of the jury room by introducing twelve characters with unique personalities. A particular character I believe to stand out from the rest would be juror ten. Upon first glance, he comes across as a bigot, but as the play continues he exhibits he is also impatient, arrogant, cantankerous and several other traits.

    Read More

  • Use of Persuasive Argument in 12 Angry Men

    1024 Words  | 3 Pages

    The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in a population. The juror that seemed interesting is Juror #8, who was played by Henry Fonda. Juror #8, or Davis, is an architect, the first dissenter and protagonist in the film. He was the first one to declare that the young man was innocent and he managed to convince the other jurors to see his point of view. Durkheim states that when we respond to deviance, it brings people together (Macionis, 2013, p. 159). We affirm the moral ties that bind us together, which was seen in the movie. At first, almost all of the jurors were so bent on convicting the young man based on their feelings, but they then started to analyze the facts and they came together to make their final decision.

    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

More about Juror In 12 Angry Men

Open Document