Patricia Stallings Case

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.

On “Twelve Angry Men” Juror 8 refuses to believe the boy was guilty because he was justice to be done and he fight to see it. On page3 juror 8 said “ [….] Its not easy for me to raise my hand and send s boy off to die without talking about it first”. This proves that juror 8 didn’t care the decision of the others jurors because he wanted to make a difference and talk about al the facts.

You're not gonna tell me you believe that phony story about losing the knife, and that business about being at the movies. Look, you know how these people lie! It's born in them! I mean what the heck? I don't even have to tell you. They don't know what the truth is! And lemme tell you, they don't need any real big reason to kill someone, either! No sir! [Juror 10, page 51] This type of prejudice offended many of the other jurors, especially Juror 5 who is of similar race to the accused.

Majority of the jury was not representative of the defendant’s peers. Most of them wanted to quickly vote guilty and punish the defendant. There were many exaggerations. Biases included where the defendant grew up, what race he was, and his age. In reality, a jury does their best to prove if the defendant is guilty or not because they are handing an individual’s life. There are biases in reality, but those are ruled out when picking out a jury. An example of groupthink in the film included when one juror, specifically the one who had a son, pressured everyone else to choose the verdict of guilty. He would ridicule those who did not agree with him. Another example of groupthink was when juror #8 threatened the juror with a son. He caused that

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.

Inside a room where life or death decisions are made, twelve men sit with wandering thoughts. The made up minds of some jurors are to send a boy to his death without a second thought, but one other juror may change that. Inside of the play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose, Juror 8 has the persuasive evidence to change the minds of his fellow Jurors and save a boy from his execution. The other Juror’s seem like they won’t budge with their mind set on the decision of guilty, but after Juror 8 proves his thoughts on the decision of innocent, he may just be able to save a young life.

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

As the young men stood before an all white jury, six of them (Andy Wright, Willie Roberson, Charles Weems, Ozie Powell, Olen Montgomery, and Eugene Williams) refused to commit to a crime they didn't commit, while the other three admitted they did because of possible beatings other locals threatened to do. One of the most memorable parts of the trial was when Clarence Norris blatantly lied, saying ‘“They all raped her, every one of them.’” A local journalist later called the case “‘so conclusive as to be almost perfect.’” However, it was all a lie

“Guilty...Guilty...Guilty...Guilty…” Even if a defendant was innocent without a doubt a prejudice jury will find him/her guilty Every time based off there race, religion, and color. In Tom Robinson's case this is shown by him being accused of rapeing a white woman when the jury had no evidence to convict him of that

First, Juror 8 stood his ground. In the beginning the Foreman called for a vote and eleven men raised their hand for guilty while Juror 8 raised his hand for not guilty. “There were eleven votes for guilty. It's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” said Juror 8 for justifying his actions. Later, when the other jurors were trying to convince Juror 8, he was quick with his arguments. To Juror 2 he said, “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. You’ve heard of it.” To Juror 10 he said, “You don’t believe the boy. How come you believe the woman? She’s one of “them” too, isn’t she?” When Juror 6 brought up the motive for the murder, Juror 8 remarked with, “…I

Moral courage means the courage to take action for moral reasons, despite the chances of any consequences. Courage is required to take risks when they fear the outcome. Therefore, moral courage involves careful thinking and contemplation. When Harper Lee was a young girl, she was at the Scottsboro Trial. During the Scottsboro Trial, there were 9 African American teenagers who were accused of raping two white American females on a train.

Have you ever or anyone you care and love for ever been wrongfully convicted of a crime? The reasonable person would only find it natural to fight tooth and nail to prove their innocence, they would make sure that the state has their I's dotted and their t's crossed. Well imagine how 17 year old Ronnie Bridgeman, 20 year old Wiley Bridgeman and 19 year old Ricky Jackson felt when they were sentenced to death in 1975 after business man Harry Franks was beaten and then shot outside of a neighborhood convinces store.

In the play, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, Juror Eight convinces the jury with his opinion by being confident and standing up for his opinion. He also has good facts to show that the witnesses were not right. Some good reasons were that the witness evidence was not sold, the murder weapon ended up not being rare, and the way the boy stabbed his father does not match the way he would have done it. After all those allegations, I still believe the boy is not guilty due to the evidence not adding up.

It is clear at this point that at least one of the jurors held a predisposed opinion of the defendant simply because of his socioeconomic background. In this case, a juror’s negative opinion drives him to ignore facts and logic presented to him. He appears to dehumanize people who live in the slums, and clearly expects the boy to be a murderer because of this. He gradually becomes an embodiment of racism and hate, at one point going on a rant and comparing people from the slums to animals. Only after he is presented irrefutable evidence, and is coaxed by other jurors, does Juror 10 change his vote to not guilty.

In 12 Angry Men, jurors determined if a young, poor Puerto Rican man murdered his father. Initially, eleven of the men determined that the defendant was guilty of murder; however, one juror held that the defendant was innocent, and he believed the man deserved a chance at being proven innocent. After intense debate, the jury found the defendant not guilty. Even though this movie shows evidence of prejudice, groupthink, conformity, cognitive heuristics, the catalyst of change and minority influence benefitted the jury in making a unanimous, educated decision about the fate of the young man.