Juror Eight Character Analysis

The short story “A Jury of Her Peers” written by Susan Glaspell showed many different aspects of symbolism. Millie Wright is symbolized a traditional woman that lost her way because she is consumed in her many wifely duties. Throughout the story her living situation, her red rocking chair, and her yellow canary had significant symbolic interest. Minnie Wright’s environment is a lonesome-looking place. “It was in a hollow, and the poplar trees around it were lonesome- looking trees(Glaspell 243). At the Wrights’ home there were no children running around to make noise, no telephone to talk with friends and family, no visitors, and most importantly no husband to show her affection. Mr. Wright had a cold attitude, unsociable, and careless demeanor. Mrs. Wright is consumed in her farmer’s wife duties she loses herself. The broken stove displays the lack of instability. The dirty kitchen with the

Finally, Juror 8 had a huge impact on this story. Juror 8 was very insightful with his opinions and evidence. He gave himself the ability to change the minds of eleven men and save the innocent life of one. Juror 8 was the only man out of 12 who decided to look deeply into the murder case and find little pieces of evidence that everyone else seemed to miss and used that to prove his points. For example, no one would have thought about how the woman who claimed she saw the murder from across the street may have not had perfect vision. Juror 8 found little details to prove that, like how she had marks from her glasses and may not have been wearing them when she looked outside. Not even the lawyers had thought about that and most little things like that were why the young boy was almost sent to his death. Juror 8 was a true hero and stood up to his own opinion and points even when others didn’t agree with him.

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

One of the characters I would like to discuss is Richard, played by Hunter Mruz, because he was one of the characters who really stood out to me as very profound and interesting personality. In my opinion he was one of my favorite actors to watch as I felt some of his lines or discussions ere very vital to the story as they provided key clues that you had to pick up on in the begining to help get a better understanding of the story. He showed good voice inflection and was very active when saying his lines. My all time favorite scene he is in is when they are being pulled over by the sheriff and he has to try and talk the cop out of a ticket but it completely backflips. He says to the officer “Well I

The personality of juror # 10 was one of hatefulness and anger. This juror was prejudice against the kid because he was from the slums. Juror # 10 said something in the movie about not being able to trust people who are from the slums. Juror # 10 had several outbursts and had a heinous attitude through most of the movie. Juror # 10 was the one who did most of the talking, when it came to trying to convince Juror # 8 that the kid was guilty. There was another Juror that had a roundabout same type of personality coming into the juror’s room as juror # 10. The juror # 3 was also bitter and obstinate towards the others, specifically when it came down to several of the other jurors changing their opinion of guilty to not guilty. Juror # 3 became hot headed and very loud and obnoxious towards everyone. Both Juror # 10 and juror # 3 were only looking at the eye witness testimony,

In addition to this concept, Juror #10 shows that past experiences and person bias influence the thoughts and opinions of a person. Juror 10 segregates and divides people stereotypically into “us” being him and the middle class and with “them” being the people of the slums, a different race, or a different upbringing. As a result of these thoughts, Juror 10 was bias towards the young Puerto Rican man on trial because the young man was born in the slums, had a difficult childhood, and a troubled past. Since the boy was Puerto Rican, a different race from Juror 10, Juror 10 consistently antagonizes the boy because it fits his description of “them”. “Look these people are drinking and fighting all the time, and if somebody gets killed…they’re

Juries are embedded in the foundation of America. Preceding the revolution, trials were dictated solely by judges, which led to flawed rulings. After numerous taxes were passed in court in the colonist’s favor, the American Revolution had its start, and would continue until the United States became a recognized nation. In this nation, a right to trial by jury was granted and protected by the Constitution. The significance of this decision is seen in the courtroom, where the people’s vote is what stands between the government.

Including from their own lives each juror has gone through a point in time were even they were stereotyped by the world. The jury has been convinced that the boy has been severely stereotyped through the whole case and court. The 3rd juror let the case come into his own life and he made his own opinion on the boy without even paying attention to detail, he reflected his own life in his argument with stereotypes (72). The lives of the jurors have all been affected by the acts of stereotyping and see the effects of it that can have on someone. A boy that at the beginning almost lost his life due to the people just looking at him was saved by the fact that the jury looked past all that.

The first juror was the foreman. He was the task leader of the group, taking initiative to sit the people down, numbering them, and telling the jurors when they could go on breaks. This juror goes over the process and rules the men will be using, and sets up the first voting. He also tries to keep the jurors on task and organized. Juror 2 is anxious man. This juror was easily persuaded to change his opinion about the case and tended to have the same opinion of the person who spoke before him. He played the role of a tension releaser which was seen when he offered the men cough drops in tense situations. Juror 3 is temperamental, opinionated, strong, loud, biased, stubborn and intolerable man. This man does not want to hear the opinions of the other jurors and is sure that the boy is guilty. He plays the part of the central negative in the group. When he doesn’t like what other people are saying he begins to yell and challenges that person speaking. He began to be dominating and blocking towards the end. Even though he did not have a statement to backup his vote, he stood alone just because he didn’t want to be proved wrong. His own problems with his son abandoning him also

During the jury trial, there were several prejudices that influenced assumptions about the boy being innocent or guilty. One of the jurors believed that the boy was innocent despite being abused during his childhood, living in the slums, losing his mother at the age of nine, and living in an orphanage for a year and half due to his father being in jail for forgery. Another juror that believed he was guilty stated, “children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society”. This is a prejudice view as to why the juror believed the boy was guilty because he is stating that if you live in a bad neighborhood or area, you are more than likely going to become a criminal, which in most cases is not true. Another juror stated that since the

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”

I particularly enjoyed this movie due to the several themes presented in it such as justice, class, prejudice, and doubt. From the beginning, I thought that the accused would get the death penalty because most of the jurors had inflicted prejudices which demonstrates how the jury system could be in some ways corrupt.. However, at the end the accused was acquitted. I also liked the cast because each of those twelve men had a different character and different perceptions. Even if the entire movie takes place on the jury room, it was still a perfect movie due to the story and the acting of all the actors. In addition, some funny scenes made the movie even more enjoyable and not boring. In brief, I really liked the movie because it shows how

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.

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

I admired the bond Mike and Sully had. Mike would do anything for his best friend, even if he knew it was dangerous. With knowing that the touch of a child was deadly to monsters, they did everything they could to protect Boo. Even if they were not the cause to why she got out of her room in the first place. My least favorite character was Randall the chameleon. The way he schemed and connived to get what he wanted, made him one of the villains in the movie.