More handpicked essays just for you.
Factors that can affect enhancing communication skills
Improving communication skills
Factors that can affect enhancing communication skills
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the play,”12 Angry Men,” the relevance of the ways of knowing emerge as everyone tries to debate on whether the boys is guilty or not. The boy is found guilty under the eyes of the jurors and the subjects compromising the courtroom. This is a result of, the witnesses providing explicit declarations against the boys innocence. In fact, the boy is on trial because of potential murder towards his father and is subject to a death sentence if the jurors do not prove his innocence. Although, the jurors are not aware of augmenting the ways of knowing by examining and reasoning throughout the meeting, they prove the boys innocence by incrementing the ways of knowing as a source of knowledge. To begin with, every juror is convinced …show more content…
For example, they had faith in the witnesses declarations. Some even questioned,”How can they repeal oath?’’ In addition, Juror #2 relies on his intuition to settle his decision. When asked he says,”I just think he is guilty.”(Juror #2) Juror # 5 relies on his memory to determine whether the boy is guilty or not. For instance, all he says is,”I lived in a slum.”(Juror # 5) Here juror # 5 debates in his mind whether the boy should be guilty or not. He draws connections between the boy and him by analyzing his own past times in slums. To move on, All the jurors use sense perception during the beginning to acknowledge the situation. They see and hear the witnesses declaring their statements under oath, in which allows them to trust them. Nonetheless, language is a big factor in determining the boys innocence in respect with the case. For one, it allows the jurors to communicate and extract knowledge by understanding what others say. Without a doubt language is the basis for the extraction of the truth. Juror # 8 enters the room believing that the boy is not guilty. His reasons and different perceptions of the situations allows everyone to scrutinize the situation. For instance, once he proves that the old man could not have seen the boy down the steps and in addition he could have not heard him through the train, he introduces everyone the other side of the story by saying,” We have a reasonable doubt.”(Juror # 8) This statement circulates in …show more content…
Although, their reason seemed valid in their eyes they were invalid in other jurors eyes, especially in juror #8’s. Their trust in believing the witnesses declarations allowed them to reason the boys honesty, which ultimately allowed them to announce his guiltiness. Furthermore, juror #8 presented them a distinct way of viewing the decision, in where he questioned the oath of the witnesses. This allowed the jurors to consume a distinct perception of the situation, in where the boy does seem ingenuous. Juror # 11 changed his decision and defended the boy later on the play. In his own words,” Why is this such a personal trial for you.”(Juror # 11) Here he questions juror # 3 in which he ultimately wants to express why juror # 3 can not accept his defeat. To add on, Juror # 9 also contaminates the pursuit to acknowledge his innocence. He uses sense perception to bring out a powerful point. He asks juror # 4,” Don’t you feel well?” Here he introduces the glasses as a vital point, he questions the visibility of the women in her validness to see the boy murder his father. Further, Juror # 8 says,” It is logical that she wore eyeglasses to bed.”(Juror 8) Indeed, the plague to prove the boys innocence spreads and everyone accepts the important facts being presented and reasoned
The jurors took a vote and saw the ratio at eleven for guilty and only one for not guilty. When they repeatedly attacked his point of view, his starting defense was that the boy was innocent until proven guilty, not the opposite as the others had seen it. After Henry Fonda instilled doubt in the mind of another juror, the two worked together to weaken the barriers of hatred and prejudice that prevented them from seeing the truth. The jurors changed their minds one at a time until the ratio stood again at eleven to one, this time in favor of acquittal. At this point, the jurors who believed the defendant was not guilty worked together to prove to the one opposing man that justice would only be found if they returned a verdict of not guilty. They proved this man wrong by using his personal experiences in life to draw him into a series of deadly contradictions.
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
... 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
This event in his personal life was dramatically influencing his decision in the jury room, but he was able to overcome his personal prejudice from the efforts of juror 8 “it’s hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this, and no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth” This quote shows juror 8’s understanding towards juror 3 in particular, and in turn allows him to overcome his personal prejudice. The young boy’s social status and childhood upbringing also influenced many of the juror’s perspective on him. The men came with pre conceived ideas about boy, just because he grew up in a slum, and allowed this reason and possibly their own personal reason to obscure their view on the
This is a problem in which it is possible that we can make mistakes with our own observations, making the testimony of an individual witness not always viable in terms of critical thinking. The second statement on the other hand is a poor inference that concludes that the defendant is guilty without considering all the evidence that exists. Altogether, this film has several critical thinking statements that are both used correctly and
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
Prejudices cause peoples’ perceptions to be altered. The jurors are presented quite a bit about the boy’s background, and his records. Juror Ten struggles to see past the stereotypes and judges the boy based on his past actions. Juror Ten claims,” He’s a common ignorant slob. He don’t even speak good English,” (326). What is so ironic about this statement is that Ten claims the boy is dense and bases this claim on the fact that he can’t speak English well. However as corrected by Eleven, it is “doesn’t” not “does”. Perhaps the boy learned from his mistakes and sought to change. That is what life is all about. We fall down and hopefully learn from our mistakes so that we can create a better future for ourselves. Juror Ten is firmly set on the idea that the court covered everything by repeatedly saying, “They proved it,’’ on page 317. Unlike Eight he is not open-minded. As a juror it is important to be skeptics because the in court, lawyers may have presented information in such a way that information is perceived differently. Also crucial information may have not have been analyzed carefully. It’s important not to dwell on the past; its also keep prejudices from exposing you to
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...
Gentlemen of the jury, I would like to point out to you three pieces of
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...
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.
A juror of reason would use facts and evidence; instead juror three leaned on stereotypes and prejudices to obscure the truth. He leaned on the fact that the boy was from the slums and the stereotype that he must be up to no good to convince other members that the defendant was just young trash and could not be innocent because of his upbringing. Juror three’s prejudices come from the fact that it is a case involving a young boy who is defying his father. Juror three already has a strong prejudice against children. His son has grown up, challenged his authority and rejected his values. This is why he is so quick to judge the boy on
Especially in the start when juror#9, the old man votes non guilty in order to extent his support for the protagonist, juror#8. He did that because he felt that juror#8 was the only one standing against the decision and if pitches in, the jury might face it difficult to convince two people, therefore will start looking at the evidences more deeply and clearly. The protagonist influenced every single person in the jury one after the other with his logical capability. He was consistent with his thought of discussing the evidences so that justice is given to the boy. He corners few people in the jury with his logical ability, so that the statements about the case which the jury believed as facts, goes haywire. He as a single person had minority influence in many occasions in the
... 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.