Juror No. 8 In Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men

Justice itself has changed quite a bit over time, especially justice within America. Wether it was through the creation of the FBI, or through the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It all depends on personal insight, and what you personally believe to be justice. It is because of Iustitia, the greek statue of justice, that symbolizes that justice; that we have a embodiment of what justice should be. The fact that it should be blind to sex, gender, race, and economic status, that we are all the same under the law. Those values allow for America to have a just system, but sometimes this isn’t always the case. Considering the criminal justice system is for the people and by the people, sometimes people can fall through the cracks. The personal insight of Jurors 11,10, and 8 within Twelve Angry Men influence their decisions because of personal bias, upbringing, and prejudice.

Juror Three is defensive of his position. He becomes infuriated after Juror Eight begins questioning the reliability of the witnesses and solidity of the prosecution’s case. He lunges back at eight’s skepticism with the presentation of what he believes is fact. “Ok, what about the knife? You know, the one that fine, upright boy admitted buying on the nights of the murder. Let’s talk about that.” (Rose 21). The use of “You” shows he is directly questioning and assaulting Juror Eight. Clearly demonstrating his defensiveness, rather than addressing the group in a calm and polite manner. Only adding upon his various other acts of “excitability”. Juror Three is trying to hide his bias through a veil of “facts”. However, this fails when he turns

For instance, when Juror 4 said to everyone regarding about a baffling conflict, “I don't see any need for arguing like this. I think we ought to be able to behave like gentlemen." (16) This shows how Juror 4 is confident and determined to resolve the case and not play around. He tries very hard to calm many jurors down instead of letting it go and think of other things, this shows that he cares about the case. Moreover, Juror 8 also shows us that he cares about the case because he thinks and tries very hard to back up his claim so that is seems believable. To illustrate, when Juror 8 tries to retort back to a claim he thinks is false, “Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn't have to open his mouth. That's in the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment. You've heard of it." (18) This quote reveals how he is confident with his knowledge and tries very hard to think of a rebuttal against Juror 2 argument. He thinks that a rebuttal against a false statement is very important, because he doesn’t want Juror 2 to convince other people with his statement. In another example, Juror 8 exhibits how he takes the trial seriously by investigating the case in his own time, “I’m just saying it’s possible ... I got it last night in a little junk shop around the corner from the boy's house. It cost two dollars." (24). In his own time, Juror 8 tries to find a similar knife that has been used in the murder, and successful bought one. This shows how he is willing to sacrifice his own time to find evidence for the case, it shows that he cares about the case and take the trial seriously. By taking the trial seriously, it reveals how both of the jurors is a fair person and wanted to give a fair trial and justice to the

Although juror twelve was not one of the main characters in the arguments he was the peacekeeper during these times. He would use his cheesy advertising sayings to stop the arguments. A saying he used was “Put it on a bus and see if it gets off at Wall Street.”. If his sayings didn’t stop the arguments he would use a different strategy and say something like why don’t we vote on it. The example I found of him redirecting the argument he brought the conversation back to the facts. This is when juror nine and other jurors were arguing “Let’s not forget the women across the street. She looked out the open window and saw the boy stab his father. She saw it!”. This I found to be one of the greater examples of juror twelve being the peacekeeper

In the film "12 angry men", we can see that there is no sensitivity towards the kid that is blamed for homicide of his dad. Most of the legal jurors felt that there ought to be no requirement for sensitivity since the greater part of the proof that was brought into the court has smashed the safeguard and the kid's chance on trial. The arraignment made it clear that the kid is truth be told guilty. In the underlying vote that was finished by the legal jurors, everyone votes "guilty" against the kid aside from member of juror eight. This is the place we see the significance of juror eight in light of his sensible uncertainty the jury had not found the kid liable inside of the initial 10 minutes of their debating, which would have finished the trial. Juror eight did not as a matter of course trust that the kid was blameless, but rather he realized that on the off chance that he had raised his hand at the vote, it would all end, and they won't have an opportunity to talk about the case. Juror eight in eyes trusted that if the case finished, then it will put down the value of human life.

In his infamous “Personal prejudice and financial greed are the two great evils that threaten courts of law, and once they get the upper hand they immediately hamstring society, by destroying all justice.” (Thomas More). As these words from St. Thomas More explain, personal prejudice has long played a part in threatening the judicial system if it overrules personal integrity. Personal prejudice clouds one’s judgment, and therefore makes it difficult to fairly judge the innocence of the defendant. In fact, in the play Twelve Angry Men, Juror Three exhibits the effect that personal prejudice can have on the judicial system, as well as the ineffective arguments produced from this prejudice. He reveals how unsuccessful bias-based arguments are, and the lack of evidence and persuasive reasoning resulting from them. In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, although Juror three attempts to prove the boy’s guilt with rhetorical appeals to ethos, ultimately his reliance on fallacious arguments and personal prejudice lead to his downfall and eventual breakdown.

The play, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose is about twelve men chosen at random to participate in a jury. They are given the task of deciding whether or not a young man is guilty of killing his father. All of the men but Juror 8 vote guilty immediately, and as a result they must deliberate on whether or not he is innocent. Juror 8 is a quiet, intelligent man, who only votes guilty to make sure that the young man is given a fair discussion, because he feels uneasy just sending the boy off to die without a fair discussion. Juror 8 is clever, smart, and resourceful, and these character traits can be recognized multiple times throughout the play.

In the play, 12 Angry Men, the vote was 11-1 in favor of a guilty verdict in the case being tried. The one juror stood his ground, explained his theory as to why a guilty verdict could not be delivered, and was unwavering in his stance. The jurors went around the table twice, and ended with everyone siding with the original juror. As the deliberations played out and jurors were questioned, some jurors were not able to justify their guilty verdict, merely stating “It just is”. This statement shows the effect of the groupthink mentality, especially since one juror was considerably vocal and angered by the time being spent on deliberations. The logical discussions the other jurors had with one another displayed a positive aspect

Juror No8 confronts him about his motives “… Are you his executioner?”, “You want to see this boy dead because you personally want it, not because of the facts.”. This provokes Juror No3 into further rage threating to kill Juror No8. Juror No3 sustains his “guilty” verdict to the very last minute. His aggression is evident in both the first and second votes where Juror No9 and Juror No8, respectively, voted guilty. At first he attacks Juror No8 saying it was a cut and dry case and then wrongly jumps down Juror No5’s throat accusing him for changing his vote when it fact it was Juror No9. His outburst exposed his hot temper. Some of his outburst “… he was an old man! Half the time he was confused. How could he be positive about anything?”, helped introduce more reasonable doubt into the room which aided jurors in changing his vote. Other evidence of his aggression is when he and Juror No12 were playing Tic-Tac-Toe in the middle of deliberation; Juror No8 took it away “This isn’t a game” -“Who does he think he is?”, as he is ready to fight

Albert Einstein’s ideology expounds the central conception evident in the Reginald Ronald’s play Twelve Angry Men. Set in a hot, congested jury room twelve men are chosen to determine the fate of a young boy accused of murdering his father. In the play it is Juror number eight that has outshone the rest of the characters. Juror number eight has altered my traditional viewpoint into modern realism. His tenaciousness, wit, and insight have made him the ideal character to illustrate in regards to influence.

Throughout this play called 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, there is the theme of attention to details can be important.

12 Angry Men is a wonderful film that sheds light upon both the greatness and the weakness of the Jury system. It dramatizes the flaws inherent in the Jury system with élan and at the same time, it brings out a sense of positivism about the same. It puts forth the idea that while humans do not work on pure logic and are primarily governed by emotion, justice can still prevail by a careful conglomeration of the two. The film commences with eleven out of twelve jurors convinced that the accused ought to be convicted without having discussed any of the evidence put forth in the proceedings of the case and only one juror arguing that they ought to discuss the case further to arrive at a conclusion whose consequences are of that enormity.

“I was tired of hoping for justice. When my moment came, I was ready” These are the words of a young, determined girl named Claudette Colvin, who was tired of the injustices in her society, and was ready to make a change. Claudette shared this eager desire to speak out and face injustice along with Juror #8 from 12 Angry Men. Claudette was more mature and open-minded than the rest of her peers who were consumed by superficial fixations, instead of giving their attention to the more influential and significant issues such as racism, discrimination, and stereotypes. This connects to how Juror #8 is the only one in the court case who truly rationates the case and is not only empathetic to the defendant, but he also is determined to persuade the other jurors to share his open-minded point of view on the case considering the life or death situation at steak. When one is raised in an in-just society, or placed in an in-just situation or environment, it is likely inevitable that that the person will be inclined to lose trust in humanity, which then leads to them becoming resilient, and ultimately helps them build up the courage to face the injustices and speak out.

The film 12 Angry Men opens up the scene of twelve jurors in a court case where a young boy was accused of murdering his father. The jurors move to an empty conference room in order to discuss the boys trial and contemplate the trial. With a show of hands, eleven out of the twelve claim that the boy is guilty without looking deeply analyzing the case. Only one juror, juror 9, who was an architect, had reasonable doubt that the boy could actually be innocent. Throughout the film, juror 9 must convince the other eleven jurors that the boy is actually innocent, starting a debate between the jurors. The purpose of this argument reveals that despite the fact that juror 9 was out numbered, one to eleven, he was able to come up with supportive evidence

I will be writing about the famous play “12 Angry Men” the play is about a long negotiation whether a young boy had killed his father. One Juror changes the mindset of every other Juror in the room among him. Although each Juror has a divergent opinion on the scenario, the Jurors personalities, beliefs, and views of responsibility nearly prevented them from coming to a correct conclusion of the discussion.