Personal Motivations 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.

The capacity of human beings to possess different viewpoints, opinions beliefs and choices is what draws the line between man and animal. During the course of Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the viewer sees exactly what makes up the unique and complex nature of man and how these individualities can compare and contrast when combined. The message she conveyed by her depictions of the opinions of each of the jurors was that with twelve different people comes twelve different viewpoints that everyone included can learn from. By using the Marxist and Historical lens, it reveals that even though the jurors are seen as a collective, their individuality is what propels the story into a study of human nature and interpersonal communication.

People's bias and predispositions can affect their opinion of different circumstances and different people. This is very evident throughout the play. After the first group vote and juror 8 votes not guilty, a discussion ensues. It is there that

Through the 8th Juror’s characteristic of a brave individual, it is evident that the play is symbolising him as a ‘hero’. From the beginning, he puts himself

The play "Twelve Angry Men", By Reginald Rose, is a play about 12 jurors that in an

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.

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

Juror Eight seems to be the opposite, feeling sympathetic for the boy because of his poor upbringing. He demands to overview the case evidence given by the old man and the old woman, seeing as there is plausible doubt in the details. He refuses to let Juror Three’s accusations of him and the defendant upset him instead he proceeds to convince the remaining jurors that the boy is not guilty. The race of the characters are never announced because the play is supposed to be interpreted in any way the reader wants to see it. Juror Eight is clearly more intelligent than Juror Three considering Three sticks to his prejudices and does not allow the other jurors to sway his mind. After defending his side throughout the duration of the play, Jurors Four and Three begin to feel pressured. They end up giving in to the other jurors at towards the end of the play as they communicatively persuade a stubborn

Juror eight is an unbiased man only seeking justice and fairness from this trial. He shows this when he says “I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.” Furthermore, juror eight displays his prejudiced personality through the use of this quote. However, other characters, such as juror three, are appalled by juror eight’s beliefs and only see that the boy is undoubtedly guilty because of his criminal record and testimonies against him.

In the drama Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, juror 8 does a good job in persuading the other jurors to listen and reconsider the evidence. He uses his rhetorical appeals to captivate the other jurors attention. He gains an authority towards the other jurors which makes them trust him more. Juror 8 deconstructs the testimony and evidence with his rhetorical appeal to make the other jurors consider the innocence of the defendant.

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

The heart of the American Judicial System is the determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused. At the beginning of the play, the jurors all feel that the man is guilty for murdering his father and they all wanted to convict him without carrying out a detailed discussion. The persistence of juror eight, however, plays a significant role in ensuring that the correct and fair verdict is delivered. The judicial system maintains that the defendant does not have an obligation to prove his innocence. The fact is not clear to everyone as Juror 8 reminds Juror 2 about it. The fact is a key element of the judicial system and assists in the process of coming up with a verdict. The defendant is usually innocent until proven guilty. Another element of the judicial system that comes out in the play is for a verdict to stand it must be unanimous. Unanimity ensures that the

Imagine this, you're being taken to jail for a crime you supposedly did, although you actually had nothing to do with it. The next day you have a trial, but The jurors that are there care less of who you are. The trial goes up to three days, finally the jurors discuss the case and come up to a decision, however it isn't what you had expected. You're accused guilty for a crime you didn't commit and now you have to deal with the consequences, what perhaps could have gone wrong in this case? Could it have been that someone set you up, then again could it have been that the jurors in the trial just rushed since they didn't actually care from the start?

Juror 8 knows that bargaining power can shift through focusing on common understanding and emotional connection. Power in a negotiation can be derived through knowledge of participants. Initially Henry is quiet and not engaging in the conversation, however, he observes the others’ behavior. He never reveals anything about himself, his background, his motives, and his name stay in the dark until the end of the movie. Henry states that having reasonable doubts made him vote “not guilty”, and the idea of sentencing somebody to death can not be a matter of view minutes. He knows that only with an ally he can continue a discussion. Knowing that the he can not hold up his position alone for a longer time, he decides to gamble for the support. He hopes that he might have appealed to at least one of the jurors that were not really convinced of the guilt of the defendant from the beginning. Recognizing the importance of the life of the accused Juror 9, an older man changes his vote. He engages in Henry’s attempt to change the opinion of the others. He in the end provides the final facts that change