Conflict Twelve 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.

This case was one of truth and justice. It becomes evident when the Juror 9 says to Juror 10. ‘Do you think you have a monopoly on truth?' [Juror 9, page 8] The fact is, nobody really knows what the truth is, and at the end of the play, still nobody does. The boy may have been guilty, but as Juror 8 pointed out, who were they to make that assumption? Most of the Jurors had taken for granted that what the prosecution had told them was the truth. Through much discussion the Jurors realised that this may

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.

Seeing his chance, he is firmly set on this boys guilt, seeing his own son's guilt in the accused. But it does not stop there.

Overall, Juror 8 is one of the most impactful characters in this theatre production. Without him there would be no conflict in the court case. Juror 8 was able to go from being unsure about his vote to completely confident along with the changing the minds of every single Juror in that room and save a boy from his execution. Juror 8 has a huge role in this storyline and has a very persuasive and open minded personality. Juror 8’s decisions in

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.

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.

The appropriate careful and sincere discussion in regards to the trial is participated in by most, however, other are unable to dispose their own personal opinions. Jurors 8, 9, 11 and 4 for the most part show more strongly than the others, a logical point of view. These jurors take their duties very seriously and make their decisions based on the dissection of the evidence give. Juror 11 demonstrates this logic through the comment “we have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict.” This reasonable stance is used in Rose’s construction to align the audience with these Jurors as they value both human life and the American court system. These qualities are conveyed as important by Rose through the creation of this play. Conversely Jurors

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

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

in the jury room: Juror 8, Juror 3 and Juror 9. Juror 8 is important because he is smart, brave, and fair. Juror 3 was important because he was the antagonist, he was mean, and he was intolerant. Juror 9 was important because he wasn�t afraid of confronting other jurors. Juror 8 was a very important juror, he was the protagonist. He was the one that proved the truth. Juror 8 was very smart, he bought a knife similar to

One of the jurors is not happy about this stay of fulfilment and is holding fast his opinion of guilty. Juror three, the leader of his business, rejects to change his vote or judgment in any way. Still haunted by his own son, juror three orally violation the group with a powerful tone and a reticent situation. One of twelve, Reginald Rose created them all from the same pen and ink, and they could all be no more different.

Juror 4 was able to communicate his ideas and thought like a professional and did so in an organised fashion. He analysed each piece of evidence with care and used logic and his skills of deduction to guide his vote. Rose intended for the audience to realise that the not guilty vote was the right choice and used Juror 4 as a catalyst for the final vote change.

Funny I didn’t think of it before. I guess you try to forget those things. Anyone who’s ever used a switch knife would never have stabbed downward. You don’t handle a switch knife that was. You us it underhand,” (Rose, 25). This helps convince some of the other jurors to change their vote to not guilty. His contribution of information made the jurors think more about their vote. His character grows from being meek to being an important factor in the result of the case being a fair trial. There is still other prejudice that made one juror still vote guilty.