At the very beginning of the play, you can see that there is no sympathy towards the boy accused of murder. And why should it be? All the evidence that was brought up in the court room has crushed the defense and the boy's chances on the trial. The prosecution made it clear that the boy is guilty. In fact, too clear- The defense was helpless and left many holes in their case.
That's why in the initial vote done by the jurors, everybody votes "guilty" (against the boy) except for #8. And here we see the first importance of #8: because of his reasonable doubt the jury hadn't found the boy guilty at the first 10 minutes of their debating, which would have ended the trial. #8 did not necessarily believe the boy was innocent, but he understood that if he raised his hand at that vote- it would all end. They will not have a chance to discuss the case, and it will, in his eyes, belittle the value of human life.
Furthermore, we can see that #8 is a key character in many other parts of the play. After starting to talk about the case, some of the other jurors got mad and tried to convince #8 to vote "guilty" and end the discussion. Yet, he stayed calm and tried to continue debating in spite of their efforts to "convert" him. After realizing that he is standing alone against them, he called for another vote, in which he will not participate (a rather questionable action, considering he had not yet spoke out the contradictions that he had found in the prosecution's case). This was a rather bold step, but it paid out because of #9, who changed his vote to "not guilty" because of his respect towards #8 and #8's courage. We see that despite the efforts the 11 jurors made, #8 stuck to his position and allowed the continuation of the play.
At page 26 we see another contribution to the unfolding of the case- Juror #8 brings up the question whether the old man (who had testified about hearing the accused boy shouting "I'm going to kill you") could really hear what he had clamed he heard. #8 makes the brilliant connection between two pieces of separate testimonies and proves (as much as it can be proved) that it was not possible for the old man to hear that. One by one he shattered the so-called facts, as he proved that "Sometimes the facts that are staring you in the face are wrong". He develops the issue with the 15-seconds walk the old man apparently took, the eyeglasses marks next to the testifying woman's eyes and many more.
You can say that juror #8 has an additional importance to the play, in the terms of his character and personality. He shows a side that the jurors could not see- he tried to put himself in the boy's shoes and see the case from a different perspective. By doing that, he showed the other jurors how prejudice can prevent people from seeing the truth (or in their case- judge in a fare manner). You can honestly say that if it were not for him, the boy would have been put to death for sure.
He may only be an architect, but he presented his arguments like a lawyer and proved his theories throughout the play. He avoided being personally involved and let his sharp and lucid mind lead him and the rest of the jury on their way to solve the case.
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
4. I believe this was an example of win-win negotiations. I feel this way because towards the end of the movie the other 11 jurors need to come to a conclusion based on facts that were given, and they had to use deductive reasoning to do so. The boy was acquitted with the charges dropped, as a result of the win-win negotiations.…
- 336 Words
- 1 Page
Satisfactory Essays -
Juror number 8 came with a reasonable argument to the jurors that changes the 9th juror’s perspective. The argument convinces the 9th juror to be an advocate for the boy/support the boy. Even though the 9th juror is convinced and sees the case from a different view than before, the other jurors are still not convinced. The 8th juror makes a tough but smart decision when voting to take time and sit and talk a bit more throught the case to find a conclusion. At first he says that the defendant is not guilty but he then reevaluates his decision and says “i don’t know.”…
- 105 Words
- 1 Page
Satisfactory Essays -
The jury is sent to a hot, crowded room to deliberate. Before any formal discussion, they cast a vote. Eleven of the jurors vote “guilty.” Only one juror votes “not guilty.” That juror, who is known in the script as Juror #8 is the protagonist of the play. As the tempers flare and the arguments begin, the audience learns about each member of the jury. And slowly but surely, Juror #8 guides the others toward a verdict of “Not Guilty.”…
- 1927 Words
- 8 Pages
Powerful Essays -
In the beginning of the play, he is the only person that believes the boy on trial could be 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.” (page 5). This quote from the story shows that juror eight is willing to give the boy’s story a chance and that he deserves a for the jury to at least discuss the trial opposed to them all immediately voting that he is guilty. Throughout the whole play, juror eight tried, not to convince the rest of the jury that he was not guilty, but try to get them to understand that a boy’s life was on the line. He was trying to show them that there was reasonable doubt, by showing the men through demonstrations of what happened (page 20/24) and logical reasoning about simple observations during the trial (page 29). During the whole play, juror number eight brought a theme of…
- 715 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
There are only twelve main characters in the entire play whose names we never learn. Despite that fact, there is a large amount of character development and the reader is able to learn lots about each juror. Character development is necessary for a good story and Twelve Angry Men has lots of it. It is all through the jurors dialogue and how they each act. The protagonist, juror 8, and the antagonist, juror 3, are easily identifiable thanks to how they talk about the case and what they want to happen. Juror 10 is clearly a racist based on the way he talks about “them”. As you can see, their names are not necessary for good characters and a good play. All that is…
- 651 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
n the story right from the very beginning, all of the jurors were certain this 16-year-old kid had committed murder, but that changed. Doubt, inspired by Juror 8, caused them to not convict the young kid. In the very beginning of the play it is said, “Right. Ok, eleven to one - ‘guilty’ (11). This shows how certain people can feel, but it means nothing. The eleven other jurors soon saw reasons to doubt the evidence provided to them. People are reasonable enough to be willing to listen, and potentially change their opinion. In the end all of the jurors see the doubt, in the book it is said, “…All right. ‘Not Guilty.’” (72). Doubt is always a factor in every situation, few times is somebody ever 100% certain about something. In the play Juror…
- 525 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Juror three is a very outward with his opinion from the beginning. He lets everyone know what he thinks and that no one will be able to change his mind. In his mind his opinion is the most important thing and no one can say anything against it. When others try to look at all the facts and have a discussion he finds that it is pointless and a waste of his time because he will not change his vote from guilty and that means everyone else must be the ones to agree with him. This juror is a man who is very “easily excitable” as the say in the book many times. He will snap at any moment when someone else is trying to share their opinion just because they say something that doesn’t support what he thinks. His anger plays a large part in developing him as a character. There are many jurors that don’t want to deal with him and are scared to speak up to say what they think because there is no telling the next time number three will start to yell at them. The other characters see him as an angry man who is too stubborn to listen to what anyone else has to say. In this book juror three often explodes into extremely loud yelling while everyone else is trying to keep calm and decide on a fair verdict on the case. At one point during the story juror number eight is trying to calmly explain the facts and evidence that proves juror threes opinion wrong…
- 1145 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
The first key idea, and probably the most important, is that the boy was poor and couldn’t afford a decent attorney. He had a court appointed attorney who probably had many other cases to argue. This attorney had no attachment to the client; there was no glory that the attorney could look towards. The attorney would really have to believe in the client in order to deliberate the case properly. It was pointed out in the movie that the boy had a very poor attorney and didn’t ask the right questions. If the boy had a good attorney, he would have brought up all the points that countered the key evidence that some of the jurors pointed out.…
- 1903 Words
- 8 Pages
Good Essays -
However, juror number eight believes the young boy is innocent and works hard to prove his innocence and fights against the prejudice. The eighth juror believes that it is possible that the young boy lost his…
- 496 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
There is only one major case issue – whether the boy is guilt or not guilty. The judge states the important criteria for judgment because of the severity of the verdict if the jury finds him guilty. “If there's a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors as to the guilt of the accused, then they must bring me a verdict of not guilty. If however, there is no reasonable doubt, then…
- 3556 Words
- 15 Pages
Powerful Essays -
An Argument where it is one versus eleven doesn’t seem to be fair does it. In Twelve Angry Men, a young boy from the slums is accused of stabbing his father. It is up to twelve men to decide his fate. Juror Eight was able to sway the vote because he connected with the other jurors on a personal level; he was very patient with everyone, listening to what they had to say, and used tangible evidence to recreate the crime scene itself in front of the twelve men. Because of Juror Eight’s denial of prejudiced beliefs and revolt against the status quo, he proves to be a hero throughout the play of Twelve Angry Men.…
- 493 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
According to the legal system of the United States, every man put on trial is considered innocent until proven guilty. In the beginning of the film 12 Angry Men, however, this theory can almost be considered false to the jurors involved in a murder case. This 18-year-old Italian boy from a slum is on trial for stabbing his father to death. It is apparent that most jurors have already decided that the boy is guilty, and that they plan to return their verdict quickly, without even taking time for discussion. However, one juror, Juror Eight, stands alone against eleven others to convince them that the boy is not guilty, which means that he needs to persuade 11 other jurors from all walks of life, each with his own agenda, fears, and personal demons. In order to do so, he must prove with enough valid evidence that this boy is wrongfully accused of killing his father. Although this sounds like an impossible mission, he ultimately persuades the other 11 jurors to change their mind, with the reasonable doubts he finds during the debate, and more important, the superior persuasion techniques.…
- 1748 Words
- 7 Pages
Better Essays -
Throughout the film, there is seemingly more than one “leader” throughout the jury as according to Nick’s definition of a leader being that there were multiple influences and instances that persuaded the decisions of others. Initially the situation is composed of a biased and opinionated jury that is almost unanimously convinced the defendant is guilty. Throughout the scene, there is a slow but sure change of mind throughout the jury as the protagonist, Juror #8, successfully persuades the other jurors who initially voted the boy guilty of murder to further investigate and examine the fact which eventually leads to the confirmation and agreement of reasonable doubt among the jury.…
- 520 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Set in the sweltering summer of 1954, Reginald Rose's socially insightful play "Twelve Angry Men", illustrates the dangers of a justice system that relies on twelve individuals to reach a "life or death" decision with collective states of minds hindered by "personal prejudice". At the conception of the play, rose explores the idea that doubt is a harder state of mind than certainty by portraying doubt, in the guilt of the boy, as a minority view within the courtroom. However, as the play progresses a seed of doubt is planted and the importance of self prejudice hindering the verdict is removed, making it harder for the jurors to hold their certainty in their guilty verdict.…
- 740 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
At the outset, without even discussing a single shred of the evidence presented at the trial, 11 members vote the accused as guilty and try to leave the room. Nobody is actually bothered to think what their decision means for the individual. One is too rigid to change and the other wants to go to his baseball match and doesn’t bother what becomes of the accused. Only one brave juror refused to vote guilty i.e. Juror #8 and ultimately saved an innocent man’s life. He openly admits that he does not know whether the accused is guilty or innocent and that he finds it necessary to simply talk about the case.…
- 2201 Words
- 9 Pages
Powerful Essays