12 Angry Men: Analysis of the Film Essays

Over the course of the show, juror number 8 persuades every one of the other 11 jurors to understand why he is so adamant about taking into account reasonable doubt, which in turn entices the others to change their votes from guilty to not guilty. Juror number 8 says many times throughout the show that he is not certain that the man didn't do it, he just has reason to believe that there could be a possibility that he may not have been at fault for this particular crime. All of the other jurors in the beginning of this show are stacked against him, but as he begins to explain why he has Reasonable Doubt he wins the votes of the other 11 men.

At last, the 8th Juror triumphs to persuade all of the jurors and accomplishes a verdict of “not guilty”. Throughout the play, he tries hard to gain a reasonable doubt and successes in doing so, resulting in acquittal of the defendant. This undoubtedly reveals the 8th Juror’s fortitude in performing his duty as a jury member. Reginald Rose uses the stage directions to leave the 8th Juror until the very end and help out the 3rd Juror who has been exposed and broken by the 8th Juror’s power in jury deliberations: ‘The 8th Juror puts on his own jacket and brings the 3rd Juror’s jacket to him... The 8th Juror helps him on with his jacket’. Rose’s technique of using this stage direction works effectively to the audience members, giving a strong indication of the 8th Juror’s goodness, adding onto the success of persuading the 3rd Juror. Consequently, the 8th Juror is clarified as a ‘favourer’ to the 3rd Juror.

Juror 3 was basing his failed relationship with his son on the accused boy. The reason that he had such a bad relationship with his son is because when the boy was young, he ran away from a fight and Juror 3 said: “I’m going to make a man out of you or I’m going to bust you up into little pieces trying”. Later on, when his son was older, they got into a fight and Juror 3 hasn’t seen him since. This experience probably left him the impression that all kids take their loved ones for granted, and that they deserve severe punishments. Juror 3 is not the type to provide the sharpest evidence or information, but he is very determined to prove that the accused really did murder the victim. Juror 8 practically gives nothing away about his real life, probably because he did not want to add his own prejudices to the case. Juror 3 gave both his ill-mannered personality and bigotry away in the play.

Juror number two was timid when it came to speaking his mind. At the beginning, he agreed with everyone else and voted guilty. But after a while, he was able to speak against the others and changed his vote to not guilty. Juror number three is rude, stubborn, loud, straightforward, and unmannered. He was extremely hard headed when it came to this case and he made himself strongly believe that the boy was guilty until the very end. Juror number four was extremely logical when it came to this case. Every time he spoke, he would base things on the facts rather than the ‘what ifs’. Both jurors numbers five and six were more like observers and kept an open mind to things. But juror number six had respect for his elders because when juror number 3 interrupted juror number 9, he stood up for him and asked for him to continue speaking. They talked only when they thought necessary or when spoken to. Juror number seven

Inside a room where life or death decisions are made, twelve men sit with wandering thoughts. The made up minds of some jurors are to send a boy to his death without a second thought, but one other juror may change that. Inside of the play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose, Juror 8 has the persuasive evidence to change the minds of his fellow Jurors and save a boy from his execution. The other Juror’s seem like they won’t budge with their mind set on the decision of guilty, but after Juror 8 proves his thoughts on the decision of innocent, he may just be able to save a young life.

First, Juror 8 establishes his credibility to support his arguments. He becomes the authority to the other jurors. “ I want to call for a vote. I want eleven men to vote by secret ballot. I’ll abstain. If there are still eleven votes for guilty, I won’t stand alone” ( page. 11 ). This is the

Juror #8 is a calm and reasonable man which makes it easier for him to judge the case fairly and justly without any prejudice. Juror #8 never said he believed the defendant to be innocent he only wanted to take the role of being a juror seriously and talk about the case before a young boy is sent off to die. “I’m not trying to change your mind it’s just that we’re talking about somebody’s life here… we can’t decide in five minutes.” Because he brings no prejudice in the jury room he is able to look at the facts and carefully decide on his judgement. Juror #8 recognizes other peoples prejudice and tries not to convince them that the boy is innocent but to have them let go of that prejudice and decide based on the facts whether they truly believe the defendant is guilty or not. Rose uses both juror

Juror 8 knows that bargaining power can shift through focusing on common understanding and emotional connection. Power in a negotiation can be derived through knowledge of participants. Initially Henry is quiet and not engaging in the conversation, however, he observes the others’ behavior. He never reveals anything about himself, his background, his motives, and his name stay in the dark until the end of the movie. Henry states that having reasonable doubts made him vote “not guilty”, and the idea of sentencing somebody to death can not be a matter of view minutes. He knows that only with an ally he can continue a discussion. Knowing that the he can not hold up his position alone for a longer time, he decides to gamble for the support. He hopes that he might have appealed to at least one of the jurors that were not really convinced of the guilt of the defendant from the beginning. Recognizing the importance of the life of the accused Juror 9, an older man changes his vote. He engages in Henry’s attempt to change the opinion of the others. He in the end provides the final facts that change

Juror Eight kept in his mind that he needs to have evidence and think about the evidences critically and proof to other jurors that the possibility of the defendant being guilty could be less than what they think. He did not get personal about the case and stood up by himself ignoring other ways of thinking. This shows how Juror Eight was very patient even though at the beginning of the play he was all by himself. At the end, he was successful in convincing the other jurors because he understood the background and the personality of each juror as the time passed. This quote signals Juror Eight’s determination and patience to examine all the evidence and make sure the evident character of the defendant’s murder. The honest and simply request encourages a great deal of powerful tension among the jurors, many of whom are given to conflicting views.

The juror, explained the situation must be carefully observed before acting upon it. As a young child, Juror 8 thinks that the accused went through a lot. For that reason, the past experiences cause juror 8 to think that he may not have murdered his father. Juror 8 acknowledges, “This boy has been hit so many times in his life that violence is practically a normal state of affairs for him. I can’t see two slaps in the face provoking him into committing murder” (17).

Juror #8 was much more successful with his critical thinking since the beginning of the movie. He was the only one of the jurors that voted not guilty. He expressed that “it’s not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first,” when he is being pressed by the others as to why he did not vote guilty. This is the first step he takes to get the others to talk and think about the case. He uses the idea that “supposing we’re wrong”, when talking about the

Picture a room with a large table in the center. There is a door, but it is locked. Filling up all the twelve seats around the table, there are twelve men: jurors debating the murder of a man living near the el tracks. The man’s son is his alleged killer, but one juror is not convinced. This image is from Twelve Angry Men, a play written by Reginald Rose. The Eighth Juror is being fair to the child, explaining how there are many “what-if's” in the situation. Juror Eight brings up many different pieces of evidence and logic to try to understand both sides of the case. He also wants the other jurors to see each side because he wants a fair trial. So, Juror Eight plays a very important part in this play.

Obviously these group of randomly selected individuals (the jury) have no clue about each other, their backgrounds and personalities. In fact, they don't even know each others names but they must still, for that brief time come together to make such an important decision. Over the span of the movie we see that each of the characters adds their own experience as it relates to the case and they have their own unique perspective on it. Juror 8, puts himself in the young boys shoes.

After this accusation, eleven of the jurors immediately voted guilty for the death; Juror Eight is the only one that votes for him being “not guilty”. Juror eight based

According the five Methods for Influencing Other Group Members - use of reason, assertiveness, coalition building, higher values, and bargaining - when Juror Eight said: “we are talking about somebody life here, we can’t just decide within five minutes, suppose we are wrong”, he used the youth human-being life’s important and the danger of a false decision as good reasons to force other jurors in analyzing the facts carefully. He then talks about the boy’s backgrounds for appealing to logic and rational thinking of other jurors. Juror Three was overt prejudice, hostility, and used “assertiveness” to influence the other ten jurors of jury provided an antagonist for juror Eight. Juror eight used “coalition building” method to seek alignment with other group members. He never says that he believes the defendant is innocent but his mantra throughout the movie was “it’s possible!” referring to the reasonable doubt, which he convinced others’ thought. Juror Eight continued to appeal other eleven juror’s higher values by repeatedly reinforcing their moral and judicial obligation to convict only if there was no reasonable doubt. He challenged each juror to look at the facts more thoughtfully. “Bargaining” is offering an instrument exchange. Juror 8 used this method when he said: “I want to call for another vote… If there are 11 votes for guilty, I won’t stand alone… But if anyone votes not guilty, we stay here and talk it out.”