Roses play Twelve Angry Men is about a dissenting juror in a murder trial who slowly manages to convince the other jurors that the case they are examining is not as obviously clear as it seemed in court. The defence and the prosecution have rested and the jury is filling into the jury room to decide if a young sixteen year old boy of a minority race is guilty or innocent of murdering his father. It begins as an ‘open and shut’ case of murder, but soon becomes a mini drama of each of the jurors’ prejudices and preconceptions about the trial, the accused, and each other, which every jury room tries to avoid. Prejudices’ and misconceptions are formed through personal experiences which influence human decision making, which is shown throughout the play from all jurors but is distinctively shown through Juror 3.
The 3rd juror is the most outspoken about the 'guilt' of the teenager. As the play goes along it is revealed he has a personal connection with what has happened, he feels anger towards his own son, an anger which he has transferred onto the accused. A key moment for the third juror is when he finally changes his vote to ‘not guilty’ which is when he is reminded by the 8th juror “It’s not your boy. He’s somebody else’”, followed by the 4th juror stating “let him live”. Right up to this point, the third juror was committed to his ‘guilty’ vote. By juror 3 allowing his emotional baggage to enter the jury room with him it is clear that from the beginning of the play, his personal experience with his son were physiologically too powerful for him to be able to make the right verdict for the defendant.
Like the 3rd juror, juror 4, a stock broker who presents his points in a logical way
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, Juror 4 undergoes a series of questions regarding his confidence that a young man is guilty of murder. From the beginning to the end of the play, Juror 4 gradually changes his mind about his initial vote, through the constructive discussions lead by Juror 8. Juror 4 moves from a belief that all legal witnesses are faultless to truly experiencing some sort of “reasonable doubt.” He is left with a clearer picture of the case, looking beyond his personal prejudices and biases.…
- 1257 Words
- 6 Pages
Good 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 -
Juror Three has a strong prejudice for the murder because he has a similar experience with his son. He transfer his anger to the suspect, and keep his prejudice for the murder is guilty. Because Juror Three’s…
- 653 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Juror 3‘s relationship with his estranged son conflicts with the case and how he is intolerant to young kids (ageism) he also believes that a common way of handling conflict in his family has always been with physical violence. Dependence on violence as a problem-solving strategy.…
- 1675 Words
- 7 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Twelve Angry Men is a classic movie depicting how one determined leader can alter an entire crowd. Through dedication, curiosity, and the pursuit for the truth he is able to persuade a group of twelve to second guess even themselves. Within this heterogynous group are a dozen different personalities - some of which were leaders and most of which were not.…
- 1445 Words
- 6 Pages
Powerful Essays -
The movie "12 Angry Men" focuses on a jury's decision on a capital murder case. A 12-man jury is sent to begin decisions on the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old Latino accused of stabbing his father to death, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. The case appears to be open-and-shut: The defendant has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have lost is found at the murder scene; and several witnesses either heard screaming, saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene. Eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty; only Juror No. 8 (Mr. Davis) casts a not guilty vote. At first Mr. Davis' bases his vote more so for the sake of discussion after all, the jurors must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. As the movie unfolds, the story quickly becomes a study of the jurors' complex personalities and how they deal with argumentation within groups and critical thinking. This allows Mr. Davis to try and convince the other jury members that the defendant might not be guilty by using cooperative argumentation, claim, evidence, warrant, facts, etc.…
- 836 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
In today’s fast-paced world we often find ourselves making hasty, split-second decisions on the seemingly unimportant matters with which we are faced. According to The Critical Thinking Handbook “...critical thinking evaluates reasons and brings thought in line with...” our best sense of what is true enabling us come to insightful conclusions on which we base our actions. In Twelve Angry Men a group of twelve ordinary citizens are faced with an important choice whose consequence is the fate of a sixteen-year-old boy accused of killing his father. Initially deemed an open-shut-case, throughout the play we witness the jurors, under the direction of Juror 8, slowly break down the evidence and testimony on which they later base their final verdict. Each juror with his unique approach to reasoning raises important arguments, suggesting both the innocence and guilt of the accused and further adding to the complexity of the case. In Twelve Angry Men, three pieces of evidence that proved crucial in shifting the jury in favor of acquittal were the murder weapon, the old man’s testimony, and that of the woman who claimed to have seen the murder from across the street.…
- 1063 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
Josiah Bont- to what degree should he be excused given his own history of abuse (200 words)…
- 261 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
This was a meeting of 12 jurors to deliberate the fate of an eighteen year old boy. The meeting was more of a verbal structure. The jury foreman was the team leader of the meeting. I feel as though the beginning of the meeting started strong with his decision of voting for guilty or innocence that lead to a hung jury. There was no planning really or discussing the trial at the beginning, and the jurors did not work together in a timely manner. The presentation of evidence was to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the teen was either guilty or innocent. A closer look at the evidence presented brought good points as to why the boy was innocent. The example in which the knife was used, the question being brought up about if the teen really lost the knife used to kill his father before going to the movies was even possible, or did he really even go to movies were all valid points that needed to be revisited. Also the demonstration of the elderly man being able to make it to the door in fifteen seconds to see if the person going down the stairs the man’s son or someone else clearly helped to head the meeting in a different direction. Along with the demonstration it was discovered that the elderly man would not have been able to hear clearly with the noise from noise from the L train. Most important of all was the question of the lady across the railroad tracks in another apartment really sees the murder take place while the L train was passing in ten seconds without her eyeglasses. All these points helped to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the boy was innocent. Finally all the jurors agreed on a not guilty plea and presented it to the judge.…
- 379 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Juror number 3 had already made a moral decision that the 18 year old boy was guilty. He had made up his mind even before the case had started. He believed that he had to sacrifice this 18 year old boy’s life to make other younger people see that it’s not ok to disrespect their parents. Given his past experiences, he would feel more inclined to vote guilty as to punish and make an example of this boy so that other kids would think twice. Juror number 3 does not change the involvement of juror number 8. Juror number 8 tries to change the mind of juror number 3 by giving facts. The main character does substitute the secondary’s character’s ethical values.…
- 672 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
3rd Juror is a small business owner. He proudly says that he started his business from scratch and now employs thirty-four workers. We learn early on that he has a bad relationship with his own son, with whom he is no longer speaking. We are led to believe that this is a contributing factor to his prejudice against the defendant, accused of stabbing his own father. 3rd Juror is the last to be convinced and only changes his mind once he realizes that he is only projecting his feelings about his own son onto the defendant.…
- 972 Words
- 4 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
To prove one’s innocence in the eyes of the indecisive juries isn’t an easy task, although it is possible, the 8th juror spends the rest of the play urging the others to practice patience, and to contemplate the details of the case. He discusses the relevance of the witness testimony and is convinced that there is reasonable doubt.…
- 377 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
In 12 Angry Men the movie it can be observed the different methods of influence that a person uses to impact the behaviors of others. This is a case in which a decision was apparent to be reached easily, all the jurors would presume the defendant guilty of murdering his father, but only one takes an exception and votes as not guilty. It is necessary that all jurors vote unanimously for a verdict to be reached, and when juror #8 votes non-guilty, he forces all jurors to discuss the case. All jurors are against reviewing the case, but in the end sit down to discuss. Each juror is to explain why they believe the person is guilty, trying to convince juror#8 to vote “guilty.” In the end all that juror #8 wishes is that the decision is not reached hastily, as it is a man’s life that they hold in their hands…
- 1161 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
Stage two and three occurs when a juror then questions the leadership of juror number one and why he is the foreman. The foreman proceeds to acknowledge the valid complaint of the juror and offers the leadership position to him or any other juror that wants to be in charge. The juror that questioned the validity of the position recants and chooses to drop the issue and proceed with the task at hand. The foreman is the only individual of the group with any discernible status among the group; yet as a whole the 12 men are equals in the decision making process. After the leadership decision has been agreed upon the jurors then decide to make all decision by vote, at first by secret ballot, they then agree to raising hands to show agreement or not in any question which may arise. This process of decision making is effective, in that it has immediate results. The raising of the hands to vote is to expedite the process so that the men have an answer to the question at hand without the having to wait for the reading of the ballot which will allow them to continue in the deliberation process if needed.…
- 1002 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
Blocker: Juror #3, In many ways, he is the antagonist to the constantly calm Juror #8. Juror #3 is immediately vocal about the supposed simplicity of the case, and the obvious guilt of the defendant. He is quick to lose his temper, and often infuriated when Juror #8 and other members disagree with his opinions. He believes that the defendant is absolutely guilty, until the very end of the play. During Act Three, Juror #3’s emotional baggage is revealed. His poor relationship with his own son may have biased his views. Only when he comes to terms with this can he finally vote “not guilty.”…
- 531 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays