More handpicked essays just for you.
the analysis of the 8 jurors in the twelve angry men
biased jurors in twelve angry men.
12 angry men movie psychology analysis.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: the analysis of the 8 jurors in the twelve angry men
Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose
The play "Twelve Angry Men", By Reginald Rose, is a play about 12 jurors that in an
uncomfortable room have to discuss a life and death case about a boy that is accused or killing
his father. the jurors do not really know eachother to talk to and wish they were anywhere but in
that jury room. Every juror has a different emotional pattern that makes the play interesting. In
my opinion there were 3 main jurors in the jury room: Juror 8, Juror 3 and Juror 9. Juror 8 is
important because he is smart, brave, and fair. Juror 3 was important because he was the
antagonist, he was mean, and he was intolerant. Juror 9 was important because he wasn't afraid
of confronting other jurors.
Juror 8 was a very important juror, he was the protagonist. He was the one that proved the truth.
Juror 8 was very smart, he bought a knife similar to the one used in the crime to prove that is
easy to get an identical knife, and he proved that it was impossible for the old man to make it to
the scene of the crime in 15 seconds like he testified.
Juror 8...
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.
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
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
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.
At first, Juror 3 appears to be a successful businessman who owns a messenger service. Yet as time goes on, one may see him as a sour and unhappy man. He wants to base the case solely on the evidence presented at the trial. Throughout the meeting in the jury room, Juror 3 disregards all other evidence brought up by Juror 8 and the others. He says that the evidence revealed may not be accurate or true. Therefore, it should not be taken into consideration.
Juror 6 seems to be part of one of the characters’ whose intentions exhibit otherwise. He proclaims vociferously, “It’s pretty obvious, I mean, I was convinced from the first day”. This sentiment provides compelling evidence as to what the Juror’s intentions and perspectives were, towards the alleged sixteen-year-old. In addition, an important factor that can be taken into consideration is the factor of civic responsibility, which he didn’t uphold properly. In fact, it was proved to have biased, prejudiced and pre-conceptualised
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...
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.
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
My next claim is in regards to the “old man” juror. If it were not for him voting not guilty the second time, the boy would have been found guilty. He said the reason he voted that way was because of that one juror standing up to the other 11 jurors. He felt that everyone needed to hear all of the arguments because they were dealing with a man’s life. Thanks to that man, the boy was saved.
videotaping of a real life jury as seen in a small criminal courtroom. The case
Another conflict is that some of the jurors were hard/hot headed and stubborn. They refused to accept the stories that juror 8 proposed even when they knew he was right. It's a conflict that could've easily been avoided if half of them weren't so fulsome. The decision in the case could've been resolved sooner if not for their stubbornness.
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
Twelve Angry Men brings up a few issues the criminal justice system has. The jury selection is where issue number one arises. “A jury of one’s peer’s acts as an important check in cases where a defendant fears that the local justice system may have a prejudice against him, or in corruption cases in which the judiciary itself may be implicated” (Ryan). Deciding one 's future or even fate, in this case, is no easy task, as depicted by the 8th juror.
... 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.