12 angry men essay juror 8
Unique and defining character traits not only create interesting characters, but moreover build the thesis of the movie 12 Angry Men, everyone has different biases that they carry. Based on the movie, 12 Angry Men, not only Juror 3, but also 8 and 9 are best represented by one of the above shapes, through their characters and how they fit into a big picture of the movie. To Kill a Mockingbird and 12 Angry Men, show men who were able to use their attribute to show compassion for others, their eagerness to think outside the box, while having self-assurance the entire time. To let the readers to pick up, they are willing to do whatever it takes to bring across the legitimate element of concern. Atticus and Juror 8 show compassion through the way they treat others with. Abstract 12 Angry Men is an American drama film produced in the year
12 Angry Men- Jurors 4 and 8 Essay
The movie Twelve Angry Men begins with an eighteen year old boy from the ghetto who is on trial for the murder of his abusive father. A jury of twelve men is locked in the deliberation room to decide the fate of the young boy. All evidence is against the boy and a guilty verdict would send him to die in the electric chair. The judge informs the jurors that they are faced with a grave decision and that the court would not entertain any acts of mercy for the boy if found guilty.
Ace your next assignment with help from a professional writer. Free proofreading and copy-editing included. Even before the deliberation talks begin it is apparent most of the men are certain the boy is guilty. The rest of the jury resents the inconvenience of his decision. After questioning his sanity they hastily decide to humor the juror 8 Henry Fonda by agreeing to discuss the trial for one hour.
Eventually, as the talks proceed juror 8 slowly undermines their confidence by saying that the murder weapon is widely available to anyone, and that the testimony of the key witness is suspect.
Gradually they are won over by his arguments and even the most narrow minded of his fellow jurors hesitantly agrees with him. Their verdict is now a solid not guilty. Arriving at an unanimous not guilty verdict does not come easily. The jury encounters many difficulties in learning to communicate and deal with each other. Although the movie deals with issues relating to the process of effective communication this paper will focus of two reasons why they encounter difficulties and how they overcome them.
First, we will apply the Johari grid theory and see how it applies to their situation. If we analyze the Johari grid of each juror we see a large hidden area in the case of all of the men. Take into consideration, each man is referred to by a juror number, they do not even have the benefit of knowing each others names. These men have never talked before. Each of them come from different situations with individual and unique experiences.
The public area consists solely of the shared information provided during the trial. Their hidden area is immense, resulting in an equally large blind area. The public, hidden and blind areas are relatively the same for each juror before beginning the deliberation. It is the size of the unconscious area that will differ more among the men. We will see how the contents of the unconscious area will largely affect the decision making process of some of the jurors. The information contained in the unconscious area is unrecognized, it is often the most difficult to overcome.
He levels with the others by openly admitting that he does not know if the boy killed his father and solicits feedback in order to make an accurate decision. The movie illustrates the process of leveling and soliciting feedback which can make all the difference. The character with the largest hidden window is the boy on trial. One man in particular, Juror 3 Lee J. Cobb has a sizable unconscious area. He has a troubled relationship with his own son that preoccupies his thoughts.
This is alluded to in a conversation between juror 7 Jack Warden and himself. The broken relationship with his son preoccupies his thoughts at several times throughout the movie; he is found staring at the picture. His interpersonal style would be classified as a blabbermouth. He is neither open or receptive.
He has his opinion and loves to share it. The net result is a large blind area. He is unwilling or unable to level with the others and is also unreceptive to any feedback.
Most likely the extent of these feelings and the effect it has on his perceptions is unconscious to him. Eventually, he finds himself the only one maintaining a vote of guilty. He feels his sense of reality is in question and it threatens him. This puts him on the defensive.
He bursts, accusing the others of being crazy. His defenses start to crumble as his unconscious emotions become visible to him. By recognizing his unconscious emotions, essentially what he has done is level with himself.
Once he did this he realized the anger and frustration with regards to his son has been misdirected toward the accused. With a new understanding of himself he is able to change his vote to not guilty.
Another issue dealt with in the movie is prejudice. Prejudice is defined as premature judgment or bias. In a trial situation Jurors are asked to only consider the evidence presented to them. Individual biases are not expected to affect the decision making process. Unfortunately, leaving our prejudices outside the court room door is near impossible. As the movie demonstrates prejudice can distort our views and greatly affects our ability to make accurate assessments.
By nature! You know what I mean? While most of the men are aware of the stigma attached to people from the ghetto they are willing to try to put the stereotype aside. His outburst has caused quite a disturbance in the room. This disturbance serves two purposes. It is always easier to overcome an objection if you know what it is. Having this knowledge allows for a more productive communication, thereby convincing him that he should change his vote. Secondly, it allows him to vent his frustrations.
In doing so, he realizes the power of his emotions which forces him to step back and take a look at what he really feels. The look on his face shows he has a realization. For the first time he understands his prejudices have affected his perceptions. This new understanding of himself enables him to think more clearly and objectively.
Yet the boy, a product of the same community is an assumed liar. As the movie closes the not guilty verdict is handed down. It is not known if the boy is guilty or innocent, that will forever remain in his hidden area. Henry Fonda Juror 8 entered the trial with an open mind, he managed to convince the others to do the same. The movie illustrates that everything is not what it appears to be. Being aware of this is the first step to better understanding. Let us do your homework! Expert writers in all subject areas are available and will meet your assignment deadline.
Tutor and Freelance Writer. Science Teacher and Lover of Essays. Article last reviewed: St. Juror 3 Jack Klugman responds to the negative comments by informing them that he too is from the ghetto. Very well analysed and presented. It was a tremendous help in assisting my Yr 9 son on his school home assessment. Skip to content. Can We Write Your Essay? Can We Help with Your Assignment?
Most reacted comment. Hottest comment thread. Recent comment authors. Michelle W. Richie J. It only takes seconds! Upload your Homework.
Juror #8 was the most important juror in the play Twelve Angry Men for a number of reasons. The first reason is that when all the other jurors voted guilty without. 12 Angry Men: Juror 8 Is A Hero. Juror 8 is a hero because of his revolt against the status quo. The 8th juror is the first to vote not guilty because.
What is justice? Is the American legal system set up to encourage it? Will there always be flaws in any system thanks to the prejudices of the people it represents? How does it feel to be one standing against many? It is also a film born in tandem with the origins of the civil rights movement, after the pandemonium of McCarthyism, in a time shadowed by the fear of nuclear war.
Comparison essay comparing Juror 3 and Juror 8 What are some similarities between Jurors 3 and 8? What about differences?
Where this drama may lack in any attention to the setting, it makes up for it with its elaborately corroborated characters who are jurors making a decision on whether or not to charge a boy with murder hereafter sentencing him to the chair. As shown through the play, most of the jurors appear dissatisfied with the situation, a common nuisance with the public, having to work jury duty. However, one juror.
12 Angry Men: Juror 8 Is A Hero
The purpose of this essay is to explore these similarities and differences and find more in depth meaning to these two texts. The film illustrates the advantages and disadvantages of group decision-making, group developmental stages, leadership personality and models, social influence tactics and outcomes, and the bases of social power. The following advantages of group decision-making were demonstrated in this approximately. While the trial is not depicted in the film, the jury deliberations are the central focus and examine several aspects of organization change and the obstacles that must be overcome in order to come to a unanimous agreement over the guilt or innocence of the accused. Fonda, G.
Twelve Angry Men: Summary & Analysis
The first reason is that when all the other jurors voted guilty without even thinking about their decisions, Juror 8 suggested that they talk about it before jumping to conclusions. Even when some of the other jurors got mad and started yelling at him, he stayed calm and tried to work things out in a mature fashion. The second reason is that he convinced Juror 9 to change his vote to not guilty. This was an important step because it paved the way for the other jurors to change their minds also. The third reason is Juror 8 re-enacted scenes from the night of the murder in order to prove his points. The first reason Juror 8 was the most important juror is that when all the other jurors quickly voted guilty, without discussing it first, he suggested that they talk about it for a little bit. The second reason Juror 8 was the most important juror is because he convinced Juror 9 to change his vote to not guilty. This was important because if no one changed his or her decision in the second vote, Juror 8 said he would change his vote to not guilty.
JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser. For the best experience on our site, be sure to turn on Javascript in your browser.
We learn that this is a murder case and that, if found guilty, the mandatory sentence for the accused is the death penalty. After these instructions, the jurors enter. The men file in and decide to take a short break before deliberating.
12 Angry Men: Juror #8 is the Most Important Juror
The movie Twelve Angry Men begins with an eighteen year old boy from the ghetto who is on trial for the murder of his abusive father. A jury of twelve men is locked in the deliberation room to decide the fate of the young boy. All evidence is against the boy and a guilty verdict would send him to die in the electric chair. The judge informs the jurors that they are faced with a grave decision and that the court would not entertain any acts of mercy for the boy if found guilty. Ace your next assignment with help from a professional writer. Free proofreading and copy-editing included. Even before the deliberation talks begin it is apparent most of the men are certain the boy is guilty. The rest of the jury resents the inconvenience of his decision. After questioning his sanity they hastily decide to humor the juror 8 Henry Fonda by agreeing to discuss the trial for one hour. Eventually, as the talks proceed juror 8 slowly undermines their confidence by saying that the murder weapon is widely available to anyone, and that the testimony of the key witness is suspect. Gradually they are won over by his arguments and even the most narrow minded of his fellow jurors hesitantly agrees with him. Their verdict is now a solid not guilty. Arriving at an unanimous not guilty verdict does not come easily.
12 Angry Men
Being the only person to maintain a position opposed by everyone else is a lonely place to occupy. Yet that is the position of the lone juror in 12 Angry Men to believe in the innocence of the defendant. All other members of the jury are prepared to convict the man, and they grow increasingly angry at his refusal to agree with the unanimous verdict needed for a conviction. How is he able to use this determination to save a life that the eleven other jurors are ready to discard? The events of 12 Angry Men make for a dramatic stage and cinematic experience, but more importantly have a lot to teach us about the importance of standing up for what you believe in. Failure to do so could cost you personally, as well as being a disaster for other people. Firstly, Juror 8 believes in justice.
