Holbrook’s and Rose’s perspectives on democracy is that some people are taking advantage of what they have which isn’t fair for the people who struggle to maintain their lifestyle with less, while other people have more opportunities/privileges. Holbrook’s response on democracy is that she feels that they should have equal rights, just as she does. She finds it wrong that the government is careless when it comes to the people that they think don’t need the resources, supplies, when they really do. To add on to, Holbrook writes on page 114, “That same government that issues us two rolls per day, 94% of the days since our last 6% cut. Two rolls.”(Page 114). Holbrook says this to imply and emphasize the fact that the government is stubborn and won't give more than two rolls per day which will. In addition, Holbrook states, “The same government that issues food stamps for kool aid, popsicles, and tater tots, but not for toilet paper, like it's some privilege that poor folk don't need (Page 114). Holbrook is elaborating onto her thought that it could be unfair because it is …show more content…
This is conveyed throughout the story as the theme or message is to never judge too fast without talking about the situation first. To start off, Rose introduces a drama where the jurors fight about the verdict of a young boy with feisty arguments and heated discussion on whether the boy was guilty or innocent. Rose uses these following quotes to talk about what she thought as the theme/message. Following this further, Rose conveys on page 104, “What’s the difference how long it takes? We honestly….”. Furthermore, on page 104 in 12 Angry Men it says, “I'm not trying to change your mind…” Lastly, on page 103 Rose explains, “Well, who wasn’t? I really think this is one of those
never reach the kind of equality that Zinn is looking for even if our society
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 “We’re a Democracy” by Eugene Volokh, he shows that there is a fine line between being a
Juror 3 an emotionally distraught man who has not been in touch with his estranged son votes guilty based on biases to young children who have lack respect to their elders this is shown when he points out to Juror 2 “I’d think we’d be better off if we took these tough kids and slapped ‘em down before they make trouble” this enrage provokes a sense of dislike in the audience to Juror 3 as he believes that violence is the key to problem-solving. In relation to both jurors there is always seems to be tension amongst them when Juror 8 constantly reveals Juror 3’s weaknesses that is delaying them from reaching a final verdict. Rose uses these two jurors to shows how there is always one juror who will always bring out people’s imperfections.
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
There are many significant views and values that Reginald Rose demonstrates in 12 Angry Men the most important one being that prejudice constantly affects the truth and peoples judgement. As the jurors argue between themselves as to whether a young boy is guilty of stabbing his father it is shown that “It’s very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this.” This is most evident in the way juror #3 and juror #10 come to their decision that the young man is guilty as they bring in there prejudice against young people and people from the slums to make their judgement without considering the facts of the case. Rose uses juror #8 who can see the whole trial because he is calm, reasonable and brings no prejudice as a prime example
Summary: In Chapter 1, Hudson addresses the distorted views of democracy from modern-day Americans. He explains how separation of power within the government lessens the power of American citizens and ultimately alters the ideology behind a true democracy into what we have today.
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.
Democracy is first stated in the chapter by Hofstadter, democracy is evil according to our founding fathers. Men are selfish and argumentative. Hofstadter says, “Calvinistic sense of humor, evil and damnation.” Basically saying that our democracy is bound to fail. It also has been said that the most seen dangers rest in the democratic parts of America’s constitution. Our founding fathers believed that democracy could potentially be the root problem in our country. During the time period democracy wasn’t seen as a political party that brought progression to our country and didn’t last very long. Elbridge
Juror 4 is able to remain calm and composed throughout the most stressful of situations. While Juror 10 exhibits racial outbursts; “They get drunk”, “That's the way they are!”, “VIOLENT!”, “These people are dangerous. They're wild. Listen to me. Listen.” Juror 4 sat through this entire scene without saying a word. It is only until Juror 10’s monologue is finished that Juror 4 speaks, calmly asking Juror 10 to “Shut [his] filthy mouth.” Juror 4 never discredits or implies anything towards the defendant and is always careful of what he says. After Juror 10’s tirade, Juror 4 tries to soften the impact created by 10; “Slums are potential breeding grounds for criminals.” He never attacks or hypes the situation at hand. He draws around ‘potential’ possibilities. Juror 4 initially had his doubts at the start of the case but was the only character that overcame his predisposition based on the analysis of facts and evidence. Rose’s character and only this character had the intelligence, confidence and persistence to keep his head in the tense moment Juror 10 created.
The complexity of justice is evident in Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’, through the employment of Truth throughout the American 1950’s judicial system. Throughout the text, the concept of justice is forged by the racal prejudices, personal bias, emotion, logistics, and reasoning of the Jurors, thus allowing truth to hinder or prevail. Justice is shaped by truth in ‘Twelve Angry Men’, as the Jurors begin to understand the reasonable doubt in the evidence against the defendant, as the truth becomes prevalent through the Juror’s deductive capabilities, thus allowing for injustice to be hindered by the truth, which ultimately leads justice to prevail in the judicial system.
things were before this new process started. This is compared to politics during huxley's time
A democracy is a system of government controlled by the people, not by one certain group or individual. In the Declaration of Independence it states that “all men are created equal,” an idea which leads to the concept that all citizens should have the same rights, responsibilities, and influence in the governing of their country. In writing the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson was trying to break his ties with the harsh and non-democratic rule of the British and begin a new, equal society and government for America.
During elections in countries with corrupt governments, for example, it has to be decided whether the guarantee of every individual’s right to vote or who wins is more important. (Wong, Lecture, October 24) Moreover, deep divides continue to exist and separate groups in democratic countries by race, religion, language, and class, resulting in tension and, in some cases, oppression. Thus democracy, despite its emphasis on liberty, equality and plurality, can still be problematic.
Each individual has the right to elect their personal choice of representative. Democracy written by Leonard Cohen convey democracy by narrating that “the heart has to open in a fundamental way: Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.”(source 3) This line from the poem reveals that you have to let out what you feel is moral and because of this democracy is coming to the U.S.A. This particularized that the use of what you feel is right leads you to democracy.The Magna Carta divulge that democracy comes from everyone; that everyone has a choice. In the poem, it recites that “It’s coming from women and the men. O baby we’ll be making love again.” (source 3) Here is stated that democracy is “spilling” from everyone; women and men alike , that now they have rights, they are happy and feels its time to bring more children into the world Modern Democracy allows people to have a choice and a right to express how they feel , The magna Carta gave them that