Juuror An Important Characters In Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose

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

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

Due to the amount of arguing and irritation there was in act three juror seven let it all reflect onto his decision. (Conversation between NO.7 & NO.11) “ Is it guilty or not guilty? I told you. Not guilty. Why? I don’t have to… I… don’t think… he’s guilty.” Juror seven had no valid reasoning other than because “I don't think he's guilty”, this shows that he let other people's opinion as is to if the 19 year old is guilty or not impact his judgement.

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.

Juror 8 had many chances to change his opinion about the boy’s case, and yet he never did. Throughout this whole play, Juror 8 stood his ground and was

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,

Juror number three is an arrogant, self-minded and extremely ambiguous has had a personal experience in his life, that’s why he wants the boy dead. His son ran away from a fight when he was nine. “ I saw him. I was so ashamed I almost threw up.” Then when he was older the boy then hit him in the face and he has never seen him since. This puts a pre- judged view inside of his head. In the end he thinks to himself that it is not his son that is on trial therefore he can not treat him like that. He can’t hate all teenagers because of his son. Juror number ten is similar to number three in

Everyone wants to live in a fair world, nut sadly it does not exist. Juror NO. 10 is a great example because he did not care about the kid so he voted without proof just to get everything done. Later on, act 3, juror NO. 10 was asked to state why the kid was guilty and he went for the looks and what people like the kid usually do instead of going

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 story "12 angry men" there are twelve jurors, and all but one of those men thought the boy was guilty without even discussing their thoughts amongst themselves. Once the men were in their room to make a decision whether the boy is guilty or not, if the one juror hadn't voted not guilty, the boy would've been sent straight to death row.

In conclusion, I believe that Juror #8 saved the boy's life by saying he wasn't guilty. If he didn't do that, then the boy would of went straight to the electric chair. They decided to not judge him by whom he was by the end, but by the crime that happened and if he could of been responsible for that crime. By not rushing to a judgement, it didn't cause an

For Juror 8 to stand up for what he believes in was pretty incredible. All the Jurors there wanted to have this case end by having a 12 out of 12 vote, but that did not happen. First, Juror 8 thought that an 18 year old boy that stabbed his father was innocent. I do not think he is innocent at all. depends on what the boy was doing before he stabbed his father. For example, was he taking drugs or drinking before he did this crime. It all comes done to the fact that this boy was abused when he was little by his father. Also, my thoughts about this is since he was abused, he fought back with fire. You should not fight fire with fire. Instead you should get help and go to someone you trust to help you through this problem. Lastly, this whole case from what I learned depends of Memory and Justice System. For example, you have to have great memory to remember the little details like where you were at that time of what object you used to kill the person. Our Justice System has a powerful impact on the justice system. Jurors tend to have a strong and bad view on that person.