Juror 8 12 Angry Men

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.

With a very short temper to go along with his all-powerful attitude, juror three is not a nice person. Already he has threatened death towards one of the other jurors and would have made good the threat had it not been for the decisive actions of the other jurors who jumped up to hold him back.. An acrimonious and blind-sighted executioner, juror #3 is one of many that an innocent victim would not want to decide their fate. Unfortunately, democracy does not only apply to the fair and just, and undoubtedly innocent men and women have fallen prey to the unwavering wrath of men

A boy may die,” and changes his vote to “not guilty” which is another instance where the boy gets a fair trial. The 12th and 7th juror find it difficult to decide on which way to vote and therefore vote “not guilty” so that the boy is not “sent off to die.” The 12th juror’s lack of a defined and consistent point of view reflects America’s post war materialism. The 4th juror believed that the defendant was guilty for most of the play but then was the 2nd last juror to change his vote and admitted that he had a “reasonable doubt.” Although the audience never finds out whether the defendant was “guilty” or “not guilty” the jurors give the “kid from the slums” an honest trial.

The film uses juror three to demonstrate how past experiences can influence ones prejudice in decision making. Juror 3, who has a prejudice against the accused, and thinks the kid is under-privileged and doesn’t deserve a second chance, which is reason enough for him to conclude the accused is guilty. As the discussion continues as to the verdict of the trial, juror three grows frustrated and angrily refutes, “What is this? Love your under- privileged bother week or something? (12 Angry Men). Due to his past experiences with young men, he is ready to sentence the defendant to death with weak circumstantial evidence, grows angry as the other jurors question what he refers to as “facts” and claims “You can’t refute facts” (12 Angry Men) As all the Jurors except juror twelve get more and more frustrated by the slowed process, juror three begins to see through his prejudice, and disperses the other jurors interruptions by saying “Be quiet, we’ll all get a turn”(12 Angry Men). It finally becomes clear, he sees similarities with his son he had a falling out with several years ago, and puts this prejudice aside and excepts that the evidence is too circumstantial to convict a kid for murder, and sentence him to death.

The old man gave evidence that he heard the boy say “I’ll kill you” from his apartment below and that he saw the boy running from the down the stairs from the apartment after rising from his bedroom. The old lady saw the boy kill his father through her window, whilst a train was passing. Juror #8 analyses each of these points and makes credible arguments that the conclusion is flawed based on incorrect reasoning, by pointing out inconsistencies in the conclusions reached. The other jurors are content to believe that their reasoning is solid, as they have used examples of deductive reasoning to reach their conclusion. Juror #3 gives his reasons for reaching the conclusion that “It’s quite clear that the boy never went to the movies that night, returned home and killed his father with the knife as identified in Court” (Fonda & Lumet, 1957). Until Juror #8 takes out a similar knife and poses the question that it was possible that another knife was used, Juror #7 calls it a million to one however Juror #8 persists in saying it was possible. He also uses this analysis method to cast aspersions on the second point and third points raised by systematically analyzing each component.

It was interesting to see the large differences in each juror’s lives. Every jury is eclectic because it is made up of very different people with very different family lives. For example, Juror #3 seems to be a well educated and well off man as he was wearing suspenders and a dress shirt. However, Juror #7 was a young man who seemed fairly uneducated and fairly poor because he dressed in a sweatsuit and used improper language. It was very interesting to see these different personalities clash. In the beginning when the men are all on the same page that the defendant is guilty except one, the men generally more relaxed (except for Juror #3).However, as more of the men start to explain their reasonings for seeing reasonable doubt, tension is prevalent in the room. The men who vote guilty are rallying up against the people who voted not guilty. The feeling of the room switches again as most jurors decide the defendant is guilty. That being said, Juror #3 creates a lot of tension in the room throughout the film due to the the fact that he yells at anyone who disagrees with him because he is unwilling to hear their opinions. For example, while one man is explaining why he thinks there is reasonable doubt, juror #3 decides to start a game of tic tac toe. This is very interesting because he is ready to send the defendant to his deathbed

It is the juror's responsibility to prove the boy guilty or not. Many of these jurors applied their biases to the way the boy grew up and was treated throughout his life. They have created false accusations that are not necessarily accurate. They argue that teenagers his age have no sense of morality or respect for their elders. Which could be a justifiable reasoning for the murder of his own father. Juror Three appears to be prejudiced towards the boy due to the fact that his own son resented him and moved out. It is not uncommon to develop an explicit bias after generalizing impressions from a personal experience and applying that to all groups of that kind such as age, religion, etc. As Juror Eight votes not guilty during a vote, the third juror becomes infuriated and disagrees while ranting about how the defendant is completely guilty due to evidence. Two different categories came into play as Juror Three expressed his feelings about his own son relating to the boy on

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.

Whilst the rest of the play is rather static, the scene re-enacting the old man’s testimony is the only instance of thorough physicality throughout. Though the man stated it took him 15 seconds to reach the hall way, juror proves otherwise, portraying the man’s movements and covering the same distance in 42 seconds. Juror 9, being an elder himself, understood this false testimony to be a result of his self-worth, as “[it’s] a very sad thing, to be nothing”. “Nobody knows him” and “nobody quotes him”; “a man like this needs to be recognised”. This, along with the female eye witness who “honestly thought [she] saw the boy kill his father”, though is assumed to have “saw only a blur”, since she was not wearing her glasses, is just two examples of how various factors can influence an eye witness’s testimony and invalidate

Third, juror 8 uses his logical appeal in the case to show the other jurors

He had a pretty miserable eighteen years... I just think we owe him a few words. That 's all.” Juror Eight uses the appeal of logos often throughout the film, but one of the most prominent examples occurs when the jurors are discussing the knife that Juror 4 has pointed out is a unique knife that the storekeeper testified it was  “…The only one of it’s kind he had ever had in stock.” Juror Eight responds to Juror Four by saying, “No. I 'm saying it 's possible that the boy lost the knife and that someone else stabbed his father with a similar knife. It 's possible.” Then Juror Eight pulls the same knife from his pocket and stabs it into the table next to the murder weapon. Along with the three appeals, Juror Eight also utilizes logical fallacies to prove a point with other jurors.

Angry! Hostile!” This causes him to not listen to the other jurors opinions and block out any idea of the defendant being innocent. His prejudice is further understood when he says “this kid is guilty. He’s got to burn. We’re letting him slip through our fingers here.” Juror #3 is only able to see the young boy on trial as a symbol of his own son and is therefore unable to look past his own anger towards his son and see the case for what it really is. It is only through the help of juror #8 does juror #3 finally let go of his personal prejudice and sees the truth about the case and changes his vote to not guilty.

The prosecutor demonstrates that the knife is considered as "one-of-a-kind" and since the kid used the knife, there is to a lesser extent a chance that a similar knife was utilized. The kid expressed that the knife cut through his pocket and dropped out. Juror eight shows there was a possible path for the kid to lose the knife and that another person wounded his dad with an alternate knife. The other 11 members of the jury didn't trust Juror eight since they have chosen that the knife was distinctive and had significance. Later on, Juror eight stood up, reached into his pocket and took out a knife. At the point when Juror eight took out the knife, he demonstrated that the knife was exactly like the same knife the kid claimed that he had

Although, the defendant try to cover for his actions it wasn't enough to fool a person. As it was mentioned before these choices will come easy to him in such way that he claims the knife fell off his pocket while at the movies. Yet, he states that he does not remember any images of the movie where in this case is very skeptical. If the boy did lose the knife what possibility is there for someone to coincidently find the exact knife the kid bought and then use it to kill his father. It would be very suspicious for a random person to go to the father and do the crime, because what connections would that person have with the dad.

The twelve jurors are an example of working in a group and the process of unanimous resolution of “not guilty” is an example of problem solving in groups. After 10 jurors vote for “not guilty”, Juror 4 explains and list out the strong evidence makes him think the boy is guilty which is an example of expressing yourself clearly. He reflects on to the previous discussion and asks Juror 8 how to explain the testimony of the woman. Juror 3 is an example of not doing listening for understanding. He insists on the boy is guilty even all the testimonies are proved to have reasonable doubts.