Character Analysis Of 12 Angry Men In 12 Angry Men

Juror 1, the foreman, is a football coach. Working with a similar age group as the defendant, he may have had more insight into the mind of a troubled young man than most of the other jurors may have had, and therefore might have better understood how they think and act. Based on his past experiences with young football players, he may have held some biases based on the observed actions of his own students. The foreman primarily works toward keeping order and calm among the members of the jury, so his major issue is that the defendant must have a fair trial, regardless of the backgrounds or beliefs of any of the individual jurors. He did not contribute too much to the discussion in terms of content, but he did fulfill his duty as foreman quite

Due to his background, juror five is probably best able to understand the defendant and his motives. He was the third juror to change his vote, and this may have been because he best understood the defendant and could better determine his guilt, but it could also have prejudiced his vote if he felt a lot of empathy toward him due to their similar backgrounds. Because of this, the fifth juror most frequently used an appeal to pathos, though logos was prominent, as well. He even points out that “witnesses can make mistakes,” which, while it may be true, suggests he hurries to defend the kid even though the witness may have been correct after

Although he does not reveal a whole lot about his background, his prejudice may have resulted from parents who were racists or from a negative encounter with a black man or woman when he was younger. Because of this, he was hung up over the fact that the defendant was a stereotypical troublemaker. In his own words, “these people are dangerous. They’re wild.” He finally caves in to the evidence in favor of the defendant’s innocence, but he is one of the last jurors to do so. Since he strongly considers the moral character that he judges the defendant to possess, he bases his argument on