Analysis Of Juror 8 In 12 Angry Men

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.

On “Twelve Angry Men” Juror 8 refuses to believe the boy was guilty because he was justice to be done and he fight to see it. On page3 juror 8 said “ [….] Its not easy for me to raise my hand and send s boy off to die without talking about it first”. This proves that juror 8 didn’t care the decision of the others jurors because he wanted to make a difference and talk about al the facts.

In the play “Twelve Angry men”, the story line presents a variety of perspectives and opinions between twelve very different men. Some are more likely to be pointed out as prejudice, and others are more focused on reaching fair justice. Clearly, it is quite difficult for different people to vote ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ in unity when coming to a fair decision. In all of the twelve jurors, I have chosen Juror 3 and Juror 8 for contrast and comparison. I believe that Juror number 3 is a very opinionated man, with more differences than similarities comparing with Juror number 8.

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

In 12 Angry Men, Juror #8 tries to convince the other jurors that the defendant of the case, an 18 year old boy accused of stabbing his father to death, is not guilty based on a reasonable doubt. Throughout the film Juror #8 goes over the facts and details of the case to point out the flaws in the evidence in order to prove there is, in fact, a reasonable doubt. The film depicts the struggles of the underdog and going against the majority in order to stand up for what is right. In one scene, the piece of evidence being put into question is a testimony from an elderly man who lived below the boy and his father and claimed he heard the murder happen and saw the boy leave the apartment after it happened. It is being put into question whether the elderly man who walked with a limp could make it to his doorway in order to witness the boy running away from the crime in fifteen seconds.

Reginald Rose’s text, Twelve Angry Men, follows the jury deliberation of a small murder case, with a cast of twelve jury men discussing the evidence presented in court to decide whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. Over the course of the play, led primarily by moral compass jury number 8, the verdict is changed from eleven to one to acquittal, as the men are persuaded and subject to constant distractions, prejudice, bullying, and discussions of unreliable witness testimonies and lawyers, thus exploring issues about the validity of the justice system in magnitude.

In the drama Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, juror 8 does a good job in persuading the other jurors to listen and reconsider the evidence. He uses his rhetorical appeals to captivate the other jurors attention. He gains an authority towards the other jurors which makes them trust him more. Juror 8 deconstructs the testimony and evidence with his rhetorical appeal to make the other jurors consider the innocence of the defendant.

In the play Twelve Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, Rose characterizes Juror 10 as a strong, ignorant man who blindly states his opinions without having the ability to back it up. Juror 10 takes it upon himself to get his opinions strongly across to the other jurors. Expressing his opinions to the jurors, "You know, they get drunk, and bang, someone's lying in the gutter..." Feeling uncomfortable, Jurors 5, 9 and 11 leaves the table and moves to the window. Juror 10 continues, "Human life don't mean as much to them as it does to us."

Jury: a body of people (typically twelve in number) sworn to inquire into matters of fact and reach to a verdict on the basis of the evidence presented to them in court. In 12 Angry Men, there were twelve jurors and eleven of them were ready to reach a verdict, to decide the life of a boy who was barely an adult, without reviewing or discussing the evidence and facts given to them during the trial. This changed when Juror #8 challenged the opinions of the other eleven and introduced the idea of reasonable doubt. As a result, by the end of the discussion after examining matters of fact, a verdict was made off the basis of the evidence shown in court, and every one of those eleven jurors, who had originally voted guilty, changed their position to a unanimous one of not guilty. Juror

A story that takes place during summer in a blazing hot jury room, filled with twelve hot-tempered men, is the defendant really guilty? In 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, a young boy is accused of killing his own father ruthlessly with a knife. It is now the duty of the twelve jurors to corroborate and come up with a fair verdict. Some jurors uses emotion to deal with the case, while others uses logic and provided strong evidence to support their claim. Juror Four and Juror Eight are similar in the way that they are both open-minded, take the trial seriously, and they also uses logic to analyze problems.

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

Reginald Rose’s ’12 Angry Men’ brings 12 jurors together in a room to decide whether a young foreign boy is guilty of killing his father. The play is interwoven with dynamic characterisation, striking symbolism and intense moments of drama. Although Rose positions Juror 8 as the hero, the strongest character is in fact Juror 4, who is an independent thinker, rational and calm even as tension begins to build. Although Juror 4 initially votes guilty, he is able to admit his fault and change his vote.

Personal prejudice and bias from the jurors affects their logical thinking and this is how Rose illustrates that truth can still be inhibited even with the use of reason. Juror 10 is depicted as one of the main antagonists throughout the play. His statement of how “they don’t need a big excuse to kill someone” when describing the boy and ‘his’ people demonstrates how Juror 10’s personal prejudice against those from the slums affects his reason and logic as he links their socioeconomic background with their behaviour. Rather than depicting the boy as an individual, Juror 10 generalises him with “those people” who are criminals which emphasises the boy’s guilt in the mind of Juror 10. In addition to Juror 10’s prejudice, Juror 3, who is the other

In the 3rd century B.C. a philosopher Aristotle formed what he called the “Six Elements of Drama,” which are thought/theme/ideas, action/plot, characters, language, music, and spectacle. Little did he know that two millennia later, we would use these guidelines in order to evaluate or develop an exquisite play. Twelve Angry Jurors followed these guidelines to pull in their audience and cause them to be attached to characters or intrigued by the plot in such a way only a play of high excellence could. This play was performed in Merrol Hyde Magnet School. Twelve Angry Jurors demonstrates the excellence in the thought/theme/ideas, action/plot, characters, language, music, spectacle also known as the “Six Elements of Drama”

In the famous play 12 angry men, there are various of people and different types of personality. Some of them are intelligent and smart, some of them stick with logic and some of them are arrogant. Among them,8.4.5.9 jurors are the most important jurors for establising reasonable doubt and eventually deciding the defendant is innocent. As we know, there is no enough evidence to show the boy is guilty or not. However, it is better to trust the boy is not guilty than just put him on a electic chair.