Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

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.

There was only one juror that gave this kid his benefit of the doubt, which was juror no. 8( his description reads,” A man who sees all sides and seeks the truth. He wants justice to be served and will fight to see that it is”). The facts were being analyzed once more as juror no.8 had felt everyone wrote the case as a textbook murder, open and close. The jury had viewed the knife that was used to kill the father being unique , that no one has never seen a knife like that before. As this discussion is raging on, Juror no.8 slams a knife on the table, embedding it into the table next to the murder weapon… an exact copy. Both knives were purchased

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

Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’ is a play which displays the twelve individual jurors’ characteristics through the deliberation of a first degree murder case. Out of the twelve jurors, the 8th Juror shows an outstanding heroism exists in his individual bravery and truthfulness. At the start, the 8th Juror stands alone with his opposing view of the case to the other eleven jurors. Furthermore, he is depicted as a juror who definitely understands the jury system and defends it from the jurors who do not know it fully. At the end, he eventually successes to persuade the eleven other jurors and achieves a unanimous verdict, showing his

One piece of evidence that help to prove his innocence is the woman who lives across the street and wears glasses. The women who live across the street has testified against the boy, saying that she saw him kill his father through the window of her apartment and the last two windows of an El train. Now it was proved that you can see through windows of the El train at night. However, the woman wears glasses, one of the jurors wears glasses and he can’t even see the clock that is in the same room as him. Now it could be a chance that the woman is farsighted, but since it is known that no one sleeps with their glasses on. Her testimony has been debunked since there was no possible way she could have saw him kill his father all the way from across the street.

She testified that the murder took place the instant she looked out and that the lights went off a split second later. She couldn’t have had time to put on her glasses then. Now perhaps this woman honestly thought thought she saw the boy kill his father. I say she only saw a blur (587).

It is the juror's responsibility to prove the boy guilty or not. Many of these jurors applied their biases to the way the boy grew up and was treated throughout his life. They have created false accusations that are not necessarily accurate. They argue that teenagers his age have no sense of morality or respect for their elders. Which could be a justifiable reasoning for the murder of his own father. Juror Three appears to be prejudiced towards the boy due to the fact that his own son resented him and moved out. It is not uncommon to develop an explicit bias after generalizing impressions from a personal experience and applying that to all groups of that kind such as age, religion, etc. As Juror Eight votes not guilty during a vote, the third juror becomes infuriated and disagrees while ranting about how the defendant is completely guilty due to evidence. Two different categories came into play as Juror Three expressed his feelings about his own son relating to the boy on

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

Now No.8 tells No.9 he can say what he wants to say about the old man for the reason he lied. No.9 say, “ This is a quiet, frightened, insignificant man who has been nothing all his life, who has never had recognition - his name in the newspapers. Nobody knows him after seventy-five years. That’s a very sad thing. A man like this needs to be recognized. To be questioned, and listened to, and quoted just once. This is very important” ( page.16 ). Juror 8 tells juror 9 it is okay to say your own opinion. All the other jurors feel comfortable saying their own opinions because juror 8 voiced his own. “Look this boy’s been kicked around all his life. You know, living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine years old. That’s not a very good head start. He’s a tough, angry kid. You know why slum kids get that way? Because we knock’em on the head once a day everyday. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.” ( page. 5 ). No.8 is trying to make people feel bad for the boy. He’s trying to say that they shouldn’t convict him because he hasn't had the best life so he needs to have the opportunity to live the rest of his life doing something that makes him happy. Juror 8 is so powerful he can make all the other jurors say their own opinions. Because of his pathos and his strong ethos the other jurors will listen to his logical appeal about the case.

A story that takes place during summer in a blazing hot jury room, filled with twelve hot-tempered men, is the defendant really guilty? In 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, a young boy is accused of killing his own father ruthlessly with a knife. It is now the duty of the twelve jurors to corroborate and come up with a fair verdict. Some jurors uses emotion to deal with the case, while others uses logic and provided strong evidence to support their claim. Juror Four and Juror Eight are similar in the way that they are both open-minded, take the trial seriously, and they also uses logic to analyze problems.

The book “twelve angry men” by Reginald Rose tells the story about a boy that is put on trial for the murder of his father. In the story 12 jurors have to decide if they think that he is guilty. In the beginning of the story everyone voted that the boy was guilty except for juror #8. By the end of the story everyone voted not guilty and he was let off. In this essay it will discuss whether or not i believe if the defendant was guilty.

When the Eighth Juror tried to open the discussion and give the boy a fair trial, he created the whole story. The entire play would not have even occurred if not for the Eighth Juror. At the start, all of the jurors wanted to go home. Several even talk about how they want to “get this over with” (Rose 7). So, all jurors were willing to vote as quickly as possible even if it meant that the defendant may not get the fairest hearing. But, the eighth was not willing to allow this because he wanted a fair trial. So, without the Eighth Juror, would there even be a story to tell? Most would think not. Juror Eight says many things that make the rest of the jury think a lot about. For instance, he states, “It’s not easy to identify a voice” (Rose 32). By bringing up this valid reasoning, he added to the story and gave the boy a fair chance by questioning whether the story of everybody involved in the case is definitely true. Furthermore, if the Eighth Juror had not promoted the discussion of this boy’s case, everyone would have voted guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But, there was reasonable doubt from Juror Eight, as

At this point in the play, almost all of the evidence has been reviewed, and almost all of the Jurors are siding with the “Not Guiltynot guilty” claim. When the boy’s intelligence is brought into question, Juror 10 decides that he has had enough of of listening to the evidence (and common sense), at which point he goes on a very long rant about what he thinks about the boy. He proceeds to say that “Human life don’t mean as much to them as it does to us [...] It’s like they have no feelings [...] There’s not a one of ‘em who’s any good.

Juror 8 see the situation with reasonable doubt feeling and it is influence him to vote not guilty throughout the discussion. He came out with valid reason why he votes for not guilty. He does not want send someone to death penalty easily without concrete evidence. His belief makes him to fight for it in sake of justice and influence him towards his decision making. He shows the emotional intelligence whereby he manages to control the emotion and moods in himself and others.

Juror 10 gives this story the backbone it needs to stand up. The whole point of this story is the two Jurors(3&10) that believe the boy is guilty no matter what. Without Juror 10, Juror 3 might have been persuaded easier than he was. On another note, Juror 10 was one of the last people to change his vote, and even when he did, he still thought the kid was guilty. This shows a lot. Juror 10 was the only one in the end who still thought the boy was guilty. Juror 10 even says at the end of the book, “Yes, I think he’s guilty. But I couldn’t care less… Do whatever you want to do.”(Rose 71) Based on this quote, Juror 10 is very strong minded, and would not let anyone change his point of view Also, this shows that Juror 10 could not ‘care less’ about the boy. He did not care what happened to him, he