The 8th Juror 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.

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

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 the film 12 Angry Men (1957), directed by Sidney Lumet, is a film about a group of 12 jurors on a murder case. As the beginning of the film begins, the men are seen entering the deliberation room to come to a consensus on the case that was assigned. In the case, a young juvenile is being tried for the murder of his own father. If he is found guilty, the boy will be sent to the chair and will die by execution. If he is found not guilty then he will live. As the 12 jurors all sit down to make a beginning vote (aiming to create a unanimous consensus), only one of the men votes that the defendant is not guilty of the presented charges. Juror #8, the opposition to everyone, believes that there is reasonable doubt

In 12 Angry Men, a group of 12 jurors must decide whether or not an eighteen year old boy should be sentenced to death for killing his father (Fonda, 1957). The jurors must reach consensus and the verdict must remain unanimous. Upon their deliberations, eleven vote guilty while juror #8 believes there may be reasonable doubt

Twelve men on the jury. We've finished hearing the case, and now we are deliberating their decision. A tenth of them wants to condemn the man. One thinks that he is innocent. The other eleven want him to alter his voice so that they can provide their verdict and go home. He refuses, so they have to say about it. If they can not reach a unanimous decision, the case must be brought to trial. They say a lot. Gradually, the jury a ten others come around to agreeing to the stronghold and one of the accused is innocent, and his lawyer has lousy representative job. They all have different personalities and different reasons to believe the way they do, so it's not all the same argument every time. They go through all the evidence presented at trial,

Juror 8 is significant to the play Twelve Angry Men because of the justice he brings to the case. Without this character there would be significantly less conflict between characters and the extra evidence would not have been reviewed. Juror 8 examines the evidence in greater detail and believes that everyone deserves a fair trial, regardless of their background or race. “ I had a peculiar feeling about the trial… the defence counsel never really conducted a thorough cross examination, too many questions were left unasked”. (Juror 8) It becomes obvious at this point in the play, that Juror 8 is above prejudice and will stay true to what he believes and is willing to stand alone. Consequently, the other jurors learn that they too can overcome

mind that the result of a guilty verdict would mean the boy would be killed. All of the men

Throughout the film 12 Angry Men, Juror #8 argues eleven men to prove the innocence of the young man who is on trial for the murder of his father. In the beginning of the film, the vote is guilty, eleven and not guilty, one. But as time goes on, Juror #8 has strong evidence to prove his point that the young man is not guilty. He takes into consideration that the decision these men makes is life or death, if they agree that he is guilty then he will be sent to the electric chair. After several hours of arguments and review of evidence, they unanimously chose not guilty. The film ends with Juror #8 and Juror #9 introducing themselves and then going their separate ways, never finding out if the young man was prosecuted as guilty or not guilty. This cliffhanger leaves the audience to decide for themselves, guilty or not guilty? Even though Juror #9 had strong evidence and influenced the whole jury, I believe the young man is guilty.

Cinema is a canvas that enables the director to address very different and often touchy subjects in a unique light. In this movie the audience is faced with 12 jurors who hold the fate of a young man on trial for murder in their hands. It is supposed to be that one is innocent until proven guilty; however that is not the case in this movie. The Jurors are very prejudiced and closed minded throughout most of the movie for the most part. However, the one juror who is not that way is number 8. In the 1957 MGM film 12 Angry Men Juror number 8 relies primarily on his core values of honesty, reason, and his leadership skills to talk about the case and eventually acquit the young man of murder.

On the surface, the case appears to be open-and-shut due to several facts: 1) The defendant possess only a weak alibi 2) a knife the boy claimed to have lost is then found at the murder scene by the police 3) several witnesses claimed to have been heard screaming, observed the killing or the boy running from the scene. In the beginning, 11 of the jurors immediately vote guilty with only Juror No. 8 casting a not guilty vote. At first the juror (Mr. Davis) bases the vote more for the sake of discussion. The jurors in the room must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the boy defendant is guilty of murdering his father. As the jury's deliberations unfold, the story quickly becomes an intimate study of the jurors' very complex personalities. These personalities range from the wise, bright and empathetic to the arrogant or prejudiced and even merciless. This provides the immediate backdrop to Mr. Davis' attempts to convince the other jurors that a "not guilty" verdict might be appropriate

Throughout the movie 12 Angry Men, there were many factors that went into their final decision. All jurors except for one thought the young man pleaded guilty, but one by one began to believe he wasn’t guilty after all. Factors like the temperature, time, and past experiences affected the overall decision of the small group within this film.

In the American criminal system, those charged with crimes needed to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, the main character, Juror Eight, was able to put hesitation into the rest of the jury’s minds. He challenged the evidence and proved to them that they could not be sure enough to convict the defendant. Society had certain expectations when it came to the jury; they were expected to make impartial decisions, based on facts alone, without any prejudices, outside influences or personal issues influencing their decisions. As the play unfolded, there was a struggle between right and wrong; a struggle against prejudices, racism, and a struggle for compassion. Juror Eight’s honorable efforts were highly commendable, as not only was able to save the boy’s life, but he

The movie “12 Angry Men” follows twelve jurors in The United States of America during the closing argument of a murder case. The case involved a young Puerto Rican man who has been accused of his father's murder. The twelve members of the jury are chosen to deliberate the defendant’s innocence. A guilty verdict would have resulted in the execution of the defendant, by mean of the electric chair. When beginning their deliberations in the jury room 11 of the 12 jurors were quick to decide the defendant was guilty. As the twelve men try and come to a unanimous decision in relation to the case, one of the jurors cast multiple points for reasonable doubt on the case and the evidence provided by the prosecution. As the story develops personal issues such as ethnicity, social stature, and generalisation, start to affect the juror’s objectivity in relation to

The screenplay 12 Angry Men, jurors discuss if a boy should be put on the death sentence for killing his father. Many moments in this book it left me feeling curious about what will happen next and why a person in the book did what he did. In the beginning of the book the eighth juror votes not guilty, because he has a reasonable doubt (pg.11-13). This scene makes me wonder why juror eight voted the way he did. The rest of the jurors voted not guilty, so what facts did he notice during the trial that the others missed. Also, the old man’s testimony said he heard the boy scream “I'm going to kill you” at the same time as the murder. It’s not possible to hear the scream if the E-Train was roaring past the apartment at that time (pg.33-35). Why