The Juror

Juror 4 is an educated and logical man because all of his arguments are based on the facts and evidence. He also notices some details that other jurors ignored at the beginning. He illustrates that the murder weapon, which is an unusual carved handle and blade knife is a strong evidence that proves the boy is the suspect because

Although juror twelve was not one of the main characters in the arguments he was the peacekeeper during these times. He would use his cheesy advertising sayings to stop the arguments. A saying he used was “Put it on a bus and see if it gets off at Wall Street.”. If his sayings didn’t stop the arguments he would use a different strategy and say something like why don’t we vote on it. The example I found of him redirecting the argument he brought the conversation back to the facts. This is when juror nine

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. Juror 8 had many

about a group of jurors that are trying to decide if a boy is guilty of killing his father. Throughout the movie most of the jurors believe that the boy is guilty and they believe he is guilty because these jurors are discriminating against the boy. They judge the boy based on where he is from and his background rather than further discussing the evidence. However one juror, juror eight, kept an open mind which promoted reason and he tries to show this reason to the other jurors. He knows what

fallacious argument. In this movie there are many situations where people have used fallacious argument, which is listed below. #Juror 8.He is nineteen years old. Initially EIGHT argue that kid is only 19 years old, how could he kill his father. But this age is enough for thinking what to do or not. We have not any reasonable logic behind that kid can't murder. #Juror 8.There were eleven votes for guilty. If most of the people are supporting one thing then oppose them and telling that since

Juror Eight would make a phenomenal detective. While deciding the verdict, he reveals that he was very attentive in the trial when he is brave enough to stand up to the others and tell them very precisely what what said in the trial and how it doesn’t match up. In the play “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, Juror Eight shows many traits, among these traits are attentive, brave, and precise. He displays these characteristics many times throughout the play. The first character trait Juror Eight shows

was about twelve male jurors, brought together in a deliberation room to decide whether a boy is guilty of killing his father. The deliberation began with an 11-1 vote for guilty. As the movie progressed, the one man who had a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the young boy, convinced the other members of the jury to question the facts ultimately leading to a unanimous vote for innocence. There were two obvious leaders in this movie, Juror number 1, the foreman and Juror number 8, the man who

scene of twelve jurors in a court case where a young boy was accused of murdering his father. The jurors move to an empty conference room in order to discuss the boys trial and contemplate the trial. With a show of hands, eleven out of the twelve claim that the boy is guilty without looking deeply analyzing the case. Only one juror, juror 9, who was an architect, had reasonable doubt that the boy could actually be innocent. Throughout the film, juror 9 must convince the other eleven jurors that the boy

different views from the jurors such as social influence, majority influence, specific motivation and egoism. This shows different attitudes and opinions the jurors have. One man out of twelve jurors decides to take on a room of eleven stubborn jurors as given the verdict of not guilty. The eleven jurors elected for the kid to be guilty and refused to think otherwise until the one non guilty juror decided to step up and discuss the situation. The majority of the jurors seem very impatient and anxious

to find anything out. The conversation between Juror Four and Juror Ten show that they assume the kid was a negative personality and give “guilty” as the result for the boy. Juror Four points out that “Children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society” (Rose 48), Juror Ten strongly agrees with Juror Four’s idea he supports that “The kids who crawl outa those places are real trash”(48). From my personal opinion, both Juror Four and Juror Ten jumping to conclusion, because of the boy was