Don’t come back to church next week. We don’t want to take our chances, associating ourselves with witchcraft. Stop overthinking it, just vote ‘guilty’ already. You better bring your A game Friday night! Harsh standards and scary realities surround the books The Crucible by Arthur Miller, 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, and Friday Night Lights by H. G. Bissinger. Every society is composed of many meticulous standards and expectations. Generally, it seems to appear in sports or in times of decision making. Realistically, it can show up anywhere and at anytime. Although pressure may sound like a necessity, too much of it can be demoralizing. The escalating pressure of society is a common theme shown throughout each story. Accusations …show more content…
More than a couple of jurors were nervous about going against the norm. Which resulted in them acting very similar to Parris. Regardless that everyone in the room was entitled to their own opinions, the decision they were about to make was between life or death. Juror #8 simply chose to vote ‘not guilty’. He was one against many, but that did not sway his decision. All he wished to do was review and scrutinize the dubious case, in which he was assigned. Some would say, he stood his ground as if he were as stubborn as a mule. He was not going to let a few people’s opinions get in his way. Although he may not have been fighting against a town of people, he was getting harassed by eleven other duplicitous opinions. For instance, Juror #3 even went as far as yelling, “Let go of me, God damn it! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” (Rose, 48). He had no right to make those threats, period. As a matter of fact, there are no reasons that come close to justifying his actions. On a positive note, thankfully Juror #8 did not give into peer pressure. Although on the other hand, sadly many people in today 's society would have resulted to it. Generally speaking, the narrow minded Jurors were very comparable to the church from The Crucible. The church demonstrated a very strict biased against any suspicious activity. In a similar way, most of the jurors came into court with irrational ideas and preconceived
* The most influential individuals in the group were the juror who was very biased against the 18 year old boy, who’s trailed for murder. That juror discussed his thoughts in regards to a situation where
People's bias and predispositions can affect their opinion of different circumstances and different people. This is very evident throughout the play. After the first group vote and juror 8 votes not guilty, a discussion ensues. It is there that
Is High School football a sport, or is it more than that to some people? Recent newspaper headlines include such items as coaches abusing student athletes; fathers of athletes murdering coaches, and mother’s disabilitating cheerleading candidates to assure their daughters make the cheerleading team. In Odessa, Texas high school football is a major contributor to the society of a small town in Texas society. Every Friday night, 50,000 people fill the stadium to see high school students put their lives on the line to win a football game. H. G. Bissinger writes a novel called Friday Night Lights, about a year in 1988 where High School players prepare and play on the High School team, and what an impact they have
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.
His troubled past with his own son was the cause of his disdain towards the young man on trial in the murder of his father. Juror three took the situation of the trial personally and therefore his own critical thinking was impaired by his basis. Once he realized he was not being attacked personally by the other jury members his ego broke down and he then changed his vote to not
The jurors had come to value a case based on facts, not prejudice or stereotypes. Those who upheld this value (Juror 8 and the Juror 4) were respected and became leaders that were looked to for guidance. The jurors that maintained arguments based on stereotypes alienated themselves from the others.
In Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men there is a clear juror whom swayed the others and directly expressed his ideas. He is a “gentle man...who wants justice to be done.” Juror no.8 is the hero as his initial choice to vote not guilty locks in the boy's fate of escaping a life of prison and punishment; not excluding his persuasiveness and ideology of the morality of the other jurors. Juror no.8 single handedly voted against the grain and convinced other jurors of his logical reasons ‘it’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy of to die before talking about it first’. It was heroic of him to stand out against the others and the dramatic conclusion greatly attributed to his significant factor as the vote sway from 11-1 guilty to 12-0 for not guilty. Juror no.8 helped conveyed to the other jurors the boy's innocence. Persuading jurors in a chill mannerism whist jurors 3 and 10 were angry and impatient. Over the case juror no.8 was calm and reviewed the evidence taken from the prosecution and it's flaws. Juror no.8 constantly reviewed the evidence with other jurors presenting logical
Slavery was first introduced in the United States in Jamestown, Virginia in 1619 and became an integral part of American society for many years. Ira Berlin says that “[A]ny attempt to address the question of race in the present must also address slavery in the past.” This in fact is true as we must be able to understand years and years of different viewpoints and ideas to come to an educated conclusion as to why it began and continued to exist. Racism is still a hot discussion topic in the modern world with constant reminders that there is still tension. The biggest reason racism is the way it is today is due to slavery and its conflict in the United States. The popular show Friday Night Lights has an episode in which race is addressed. One
It was interesting to see the large differences in each juror’s lives. Every jury is eclectic because it is made up of very different people with very different family lives. For example, Juror #3 seems to be a well educated and well off man as he was wearing suspenders and a dress shirt. However, Juror #7 was a young man who seemed fairly uneducated and fairly poor because he dressed in a sweatsuit and used improper language. It was very interesting to see these different personalities clash. In the beginning when the men are all on the same page that the defendant is guilty except one, the men generally more relaxed (except for Juror #3).However, as more of the men start to explain their reasonings for seeing reasonable doubt, tension is prevalent in the room. The men who vote guilty are rallying up against the people who voted not guilty. The feeling of the room switches again as most jurors decide the defendant is guilty. That being said, Juror #3 creates a lot of tension in the room throughout the film due to the the fact that he yells at anyone who disagrees with him because he is unwilling to hear their opinions. For example, while one man is explaining why he thinks there is reasonable doubt, juror #3 decides to start a game of tic tac toe. This is very interesting because he is ready to send the defendant to his deathbed
It must be very disappointing to take blame for something you did not do. In the play " Twelve Angry Men " by Reginald Rose, act one, most of the jurors said their statements without enough evidence and almost sentenced the kid guilty. Later on, the jurors change their minds because of the evidence presented to them. Therefore, the author shows you should not go along with what you hear without proof.
Sustaining the ambitions of not only themselves but the alumni and town of Odessa, Texas is a lot to ask from a young adult. That’s exactly what Permian football provides to the people of Odessa, where the post economic boom of the oil business has left the town in a racially tense, economic crisis. The lights on Permian High School’s football field are the only sanctuary for the west Texas town. Socially and racially divided, Odessa’s mass dependence on high school football constructs glorified expectations for the football team to temporarily disguise the disappointments that come with living in a town tagged as the “murder capital” of
Initially, Juror 8 stands alone during the first vote. For clarification, he doesn’t cower and change his initial vote when he notices that all the other people in the room are against him. Eight didn’t succumb to peer pressure and made it his duty to ensure everyone else sees what he does. Second, Juror 5 changed his vote from “guilty” to “not guilty” because he realised how much the accused has in common with his own upbringing. For instance, both of them grew up in the slums and were often negatively stereotyped. People tend to agree with others if they find something that they have in common. Lastly, Juror 11 called Juror 7 out for misusing his freedoms as an American citizen and his responsibilities as a Juror of the court. Being that Juror Seven only changed his vote because he had tickets to a play, Juror 11 was enraged, mainly because not everyone has the same opportunities as they do at the moment. When Juror 11 lived in Europe, he never had opportunities like this so he was taking it seriously, especially because the life of someone else was in jeopardy. Quite often literature mirrors real life, as is the case with the recent shooting in Las Vegas when complete strangers risked their own safety or put their own lives on hold to help when others were in
Although a lot of evidence was really convincing, he tried to prove it unconvincing and use sarcasm to convince other jurors otherwise. One example of #7 using sarcasm would be this quote: "Why don't we have them run the trial over..." I think this quote clearly shows that juror #7 is trying to convince other jurors, that court's evidence proves the young man is guilty without reasonable doubt. Also to break #8's spirit he used name calling, another kind of peer pressure. I believe this is a very good example: "The boy is guilty pal, like the nose on your face." The third and last juror I picked was #8, he was not using sarcasm, nor was he muscle flexing, he was using reasonable argument, which helped him convince all the jurors that the young man was innocent. He did not try to convince anybody by screaming at him, on the contrary he tried to go over all the evidence, and he was using intelligent thinking, like trying to calculate exact times, and figure out the correct position of the switch-blade in the chest of the father. He was also trying to recreate a situation to see if indeed one of the witnesses on the stand was lying.
An individual's past experiences can have an incredible impact on the way they think and behave for years to come. So, the past have a significant impact on an individual. In my own life, I have had past experiences that have affected me to be the person I am today. One example is, whenever I walked through the downtown part of Edmonton and I noticed a lot of homeless people lying around on the streets. I felt so bad for those poor people that didn’t have a place to live. They appreciate anything and everything they get. This really effects me and teaches me to be more grateful in life. And appreciate everything I have. In the play the 12 Angry Men, jurors 3, 5, and 11 prove that their experiences has affected who they are. I believe that juror 3’s family issues such as his problems with his son has affected him to become an aggressive man. Additionally, juror 5 has had a background of living in a slum all his life. Therefore, he tries to prove that not all people living in slums are criminals. Lastly, juror 11 struggles with others judging him because he is a European Refugee. This affected him by making him feel unconfident about himself and feels that the others jurors don't take his opinion too seriously.
When they all came into the deliberation room, everyone seemed to be getting along together. After the first vote, eleven of the twelve jurors turned against the one who voted not guilty. This one juror slowly begin to gain relationships with the other jurors and begin to win their trust in what he was saying. There were also points when relationships were troubled due to prejudice. The juror who was not from the United States and the juror from the poorer part of town were both discriminated against due to where they were from hindering the relationship of the group. In the end, I think they had a built a relationship that trusted each other.