Characteristics Of Juror 3

obscure the truth? In the play Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose shows that prejudices can prevent jurors from seeing the truth. This is evident throughout the play as juror 10 blinded to the facts because prejudice clouds his judgement. However, besides prejudice, Rose also show personal bias, ignorance and a weak characteristic can take away jurors’ abilities to see the truth. For instance, juror 3’s bad relationship with his son in the past and juror7’s ignorant attitude towards the case ultimately

Juror no. 8 can therefore only exert charismatic domination. Since Weber refers to political domination, in organizational behavior other concepts of leadership are applied. One of the more recent models of leadership however again emphasizes the importance

convince eleven other jurors of reasonable doubt and change their votes from guilty to not guilty? Twelve jurors have individual stands and differences that may have been affected by their experiences and upbringing. Every person in the movie represents current ethical and moral dilemmas that plague even individuals of today. Each character also represents values and personal growth that we already have or hope to achieve. There were jurors that represented trustworthiness. Juror #8

together a group of 12 Jurors in deciding the verdict of the supposedly 18-year-old killer. As the play moves forward, Juror 8 brings up a lot of good points in explaining why the boy is not guilty. When the other Juror begins to side with Juror 8, Juror 4 stands hold on his opinion and provided some solid facts in why the boy is guilty. As the play progresses, Juror 4 has proved himself to be a calm, independent, and an intelligent thinker. Or all the Jurors in the play, Juror 4 is possibly one of

viewing 12 Angry Men, we see face to face exactly what man really is capable of being. We see different views, different opinions of men such as altruism, egoism, good and evil. It is no doubt that human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics, which make them unique. It is safe to say that our actions, beliefs, and choices separate us from animals and non-livings. The 20th century English philosopher, Martin Hollis, once said, “Free will – the ability to make decisions about how to

Angry Men, demonstrates both the external as well as the internal attributions of some jurors. Where Juror no. 8 emphasizes on how the boy was treated by giving the background of his life and not something inherent about the boy and his character shows the external attributes. Juror no. 3 who has the most complex personality has the notion that kids today do not have any respect or sense of morality. Also, Juror no. 10 has the belief that the slum children belong to a particular minority group which

BA 321 Reaching a unanimous vote, beyond a reasonable doubt, was a difficult task for the jurors represented in the film, 12 Angry Men. All but one were convinced the boy on trial was guilty of first degree murder based on eye witness testimony and circumstantial evidence. Uncomfortably hot and sweaty, one intent on getting to a ball game, eleven of the twelve jurors had no intention to stop and think about the life contingent on their verdict. The entire story was motivated by

Practice SAC: “The 8th Juror is the hero of Twelve Angry Men. Discuss” • Juror 8’s admirable character, the way he approaches the case • Inquisitive • Open minded • Not allowing personal views or opinions to influence his decision • The challenge of presenting his view across to other jurors • Prejudice • Bias • Wanting to go home • The fact that had he not been there, the boy would have been found guilty • Seen as a hero • Rose wanted to highlight what it could mean to be

Reaction The following play was written for television in 1957. The play was written by Reginald Rose and depicts a story about twelve jurors trying to determine if a young boy is found guilty of killing his father. The play starts out in the courtroom where the judge is giving instructions to the jurors on the murder case. It is stated that if the young man is found guilty, he will be charged with a mandatory sentence of the death penalty. It is now up to the twelve men to determine if this

This movie is centered on twelve jurors debating to decide the fate the young boy charged with murdering his father. We saw the jurors all defined in terms of their personalities, background, occupations, prejudices and emotional tilts. There are different displays of leadership skills in this movie. The movie opens with the jurors casting guilty votes to determine a verdict. All eleven jurors except juror 8 voted not guilty. He went against the norm and voted not guilty stating that he has doubts