12 Angry Men Rhetorical Analysis

Similarly ,In Twelve Angry Men Juror 8 is a smart and moral juror who is willing to stand against all the other jurors for what he thinks is right. He is the main protagonist who believes a boy accused with murdering his father deserves a discussion prior to a guilty verdict. Although all the other jurors initially voted guilty, juror 8 believed that the jurors should not “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”(Juror 8, 12). Throughout the play Juror 8 combats the pressure from the other Jurors to just vote guilty and manages to convince his fellow Jurors one by one that there in fact is “reasonable doubt”(Judge, 6) and convinces them to arrive at a “not guilty”(Juror 3, 72) verdict. Reginald Rose extols Juror 8’s pursuit of justice through his success. Not only did Juror 8 stand by his principles and have the courage to stand against all the other Jurors, he also had the wits to convince his fellow jurors to change their verdict. Through these actions Juror 8 brings justice to the courts of New York city saving the life of a young boy.

Rose sets up the plot in such a way that the audience could feel holes in the alleged evidence. Rose put Juror Eight in the middle of the chaos between Juror Ten, Juror Three and even Juror Seven. Juror Eight’s sole purpose seems to be to help the readers open their eyes on the shadows of this case. He is there to unearth hidden inconsistencies and uncover the basis that all the jurors initially had against the boy. Juror Eight isn’t a hero. He isn’t doing this to save the boy because he cares about him. In fact, if there was solid evidence that the boy committed the crime, Juror Eight wouldn’t hesitate to give the twelfth vote for a guilty verdict. Rather, Juror Eight is a token of justice that is blind to all

He is a natural leader, and a charismatic one, and uses these leadership skills to convince the eleven other jurors that the boy was in fact innocent, even while harshly criticized for not believing the facts. Although all of the other jurors were against him, he was strong to believe that the boy on trial deserved a fair chance of discussion. He is subtle in his power, by repeatedly asking for votes and opinions from all of the jurors including the ones less likely to speak. Juror eight gains the trust of the other jurors by making personal connections and respecting the others.

Juror Eight would make a phenomenal detective. While deciding the verdict, he reveals that he was very attentive in the trial when he is brave enough to stand up to the others and tell them very precisely what what said in the trial and how it doesn’t match up. In the play “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, Juror Eight shows many traits, among these traits are attentive, brave, and precise. He displays these characteristics many times throughout the play.

Juror 8 shows us that he views life as being important, too much to just be taken away because of skin color or a rush to the ball game. He takes on the responsibility of assuming that it is in his position to protect the boy’s life before making any final assumptions. "There were eleven votes for guilty. It's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first." This act shows his desire to contemplate important decisions rather than make an impulsive choice without thinking.

He always wanted to hear the evidence before jumping to conclusions. In the beginning of the play, 11 of the 12 Jurors believed the boy was guilty. But even before any of the Jurors start presenting evidence in Act One, Juror Eight utters, “I don’t know if I believe it or not. Maybe I don’t.” Juror Eight shows the courage to stand up for his ideas and refuses to back down, even if he stood alone with his not--guilty vote. Even at the ridicule of others, Eight stands up for himself. Another example of his courage to stand strongly by his ideas was in Act Two. Juror Eight and Juror Three are arguing when Juror Three begins to lose his temper. Jurors Three then proceeds to belligerently yell and even shout, ‘I'm going to kill you.” People who weren't courageous probably would have given up on their own idea or gotten angry. A threat like that, even an empty one, can get someone extremely angry. But Juror Eight had the courage to stay calm, even when under pressure. Conformity is usually human nature because one is usually safer in a group. Therefore, most people will conform to the popular vote or idea. Courage is fighting that instinct and keeping your own strong

After the twelve jurors had taken their initial vote, Juror Eight found himself to be a pariah among his associates, for simply possessing an opinion contradictory to the other 11 men in the room; breaking the pattern of unanimous voting, and declaring that he felt the accused might not be guilty. After the other jurors took turns verbally expressing their dissatisfaction with his audacious contradiction to the majority opinion, Juror Eight calmly responded: “It’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first” (Fonda). Here lies the fundamental characteristic that renders Juror Eight a leader among his peers: his desire to consider the situation at hand to a deeper extent than what the other jurors felt was necessary. This inherent drive to face the true perplexity of the situation and submerge his consciousness under the pressure that upheld a human life ultimately led Juror Eight to shed light upon the holes in the evidence, and find an opinion worthy of acting upon. By deeply evaluating the witness’s’ testimonies, and considering the consequences of his decision, Juror Eight considered the situation before him deep within the dimensions of empathy and skepticism. The minds that can embark on such voyages through labyrinthine speculation

This would lead to performing stage of development since they are efficiently coordinating to resolve conflicts of interest (p.153). At this point it is evident that juror eight truly believes that the boy is not guilty and is an authentic dissenter. This is because he is more effective at gaining support while changing the opinions of the others.

Juror 8 is trying to save the accused’s life which is no small feat, but he won’t lose anything if he doesn’t succeed; he is also trying to save just one life. His motivations are never made crystal clear. He does state though that he doesn’t think that the boy should die unless there is not a shred of doubt that the boy could be innocent (Rose). A fair justice system is a noble goal but in reality, it’s not realistic, making his goal impractical.

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.

Juror 8 see the situation with reasonable doubt feeling and it is influence him to vote not guilty throughout the discussion. He came out with valid reason why he votes for not guilty. He does not want send someone to death penalty easily without concrete evidence. His belief makes him to fight for it in sake of justice and influence him towards his decision making. He shows the emotional intelligence whereby he manages to control the emotion and moods in himself and others.

    Juror #8 was a very calm and collected man, who had a collection of traits unique from all of the other juror’s. It is because of this that he was able to look at the case through a different lens, in which he didn’t simply accept the facts of the case as facts. He looked beyond what was

The major issue in this case was rather or not the young man was guilty of killing his father. According to the majority of the jurors there was no doubt in their minds the prosecutor had presented a good case and the boy should be found guilty. However Juror number eight began to question some of the evidence that was presented at the trial. From the onset juror number eight stated that he wasn’t sure if the boy was guilty or innocent and would like to talk to the other members to discuss the facts.

Juror 8 is significant to the play Twelve Angry Men because of the justice he brings to the case. Without this character there would be significantly less conflict between characters and the extra evidence would not have been reviewed. Juror 8 examines the evidence in greater detail and believes that everyone deserves a fair trial, regardless of their background or race. “ I had a peculiar feeling about the trial… the defence counsel never really conducted a thorough cross examination, too many questions were left unasked”. (Juror 8) It becomes obvious at this point in the play, that Juror 8 is above prejudice and will stay true to what he believes and is willing to stand alone. Consequently, the other jurors learn that they too can overcome

Juror Eight’s use of emotional and ethical appeals reveals his sympathy for the defendant. Juror Eight's first attempt to stimulate sympathy for the defendant spring from a moment of indignation. Juror Eight responds to the claim