12 angry men juror 8 essay
How does Rose maintain doubt as to the defendant's guilt or innocence throughout the play? Rose accomplishes this factual ambiguity by never actually allowing any of the jurors to definitively prove his innocence. Instead, they are only really able to prove that he is not definitely guilty, or "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Explain how the idea of 'reasonable doubt' particularly pertains to this case.
The Twelve Angry Men Juror 3 and Juror 8 Comparing Essay
You cannot copy content from our website. If you need this sample, insert an email and we'll deliver it to you. This sample may contain not original content. Our professionals can rewrite it for you.
Set in s America, a court jury is faced with sending a young man to face the death penalty for murder accused of killing his father. The film starts in a court room with the judge explaining the processes of what must happen to reach a verdict. The group of 12 men head into a jury room to decide on a guilty or not guilty verdict. This trial is a difficult case as stated by the judge in the movie and the jury has lots of details to uncover in the discussion that takes place.
The judge reminds them that the decision must be unanimous; this sentence had to be either not guilty and life or guilty and the electric chair. The jury room is small, very hot and stuffy. First, the jurors decided to take a short break before discussing the trial.
The jury Forman gathers everyone at the table to start meeting the people. The men are uncomfortable and irritated because of the heat and are trying to rush a verdict so they can leave. The Forman assigns each man a number which is the order that they will cast their vote. All the jurors presume that the defendant is guilty except for one, the 8th Juror. Not reaching a unanimous vote means they must discuss the trial and causes an aggressive reaction from other jurors.
This is where the conflict of the film starts. The Majority of the jury decided that the prosecution had given them what they needed to decide the defendant guilty. By choosing to vote not guilty, the 8th juror is not the most popular person in the room. The 8th juror now has to try to convince the others to have reasonable doubt that the boy might be innocent.
Prosecution believed they had a one-of-a kind murder weapon until juror 8 pulls out the exact copy of the knife that he had purchased the day before. Some of the men that voted guilty based on majority realize that they could be wrong and switch their verdicts to not guilty. Juror 8 continues to use the same evidence to produce and test theories with different results that slowly dissolve the credibility of the evidence against the defendant.
He continues to break apart the case winning over more and more jurors until he has convinced everyone that the defendant is not guilty, and that in a case facing the death penalty you should always revise the case until every detail is taken into account. This negotiation was unique in the fact that there were no established relationships between any of the jurors before the case.
Forman of the jury. While leading the jury we can see that he is uncomfortable in his position of power. Even offering to give up his title when ridiculed. He is very well mannered and tries to control the temperament of the room. This character seems eager to discuss the evidence but shows his lack in self-confidence by waiting to watch what the other jurors vote for before he cast in his agreement.
He is smart and realizes many details as they are brought up. This man is the classic antagonist in this plot he has been against everything juror 8 has had to say. His estranged relationship with his son has made him hateful and wanting any vengeance he feels that he can get. Juror three is very loud and aggressive, he expresses this verbally as well as in his body language by pointing, arm crossing, and clear gestures of rage until the end of the film.
Stock broker that is very controlled and confident. He believes that the kid is guilty until Juror 9 noticed and analyzed his paralanguage. After negotiating for an extended period of time he removes his glasses and two marks are left on the bridge of the nose.
Juror 9 realizes that he saw the same marks on the witness who said she saw the boy stab his father when she woke up in the middle of the night. He grew up in a slum so he can relate to the circumstances that the boy is in. He provides unique insight from being around knife fights while younger showing that to use a switch blade you stab upwards not down.
He is a hardworking man. Raised with values that elders deserve immense respect offers older gentleman a chair. Defends older man even offering to fight if other jurors tried to disrespect him. This juror is treating this case as a joke making his priorities to make it to the baseball game over deciding whether the boy lives or dies. He is selfish and shows no respect to the other jurors or to the trial in any way.
Sways his vote in order to try to get out for the game. His body language clearly read as impatient, disengaged and nervous.
The 8th juror is the main character of the film; first to vote not guilty and almost single handedly convinced the other 11 jurors to change their votes. He is the first to consider that a life is more important than an easy verdict and encourages the dialogue along. Juror 8 is an example of a great negotiator is he was engaged, listening, confident and precise on what he had to say.
His body language showed clear interest to the people who were speaking, always giving them his full attention with his body towards them. He seems to have planned out every correct action knowing when to listen and when to command the room. This juror is the oldest member on the jury. He voted guilty at first and not guilty the second round because he wanted to see what could come out of the discussion if it continued. This type of juror is someone you do not want on a trail or on a negotiation.
He is a loud stereotypical racist white man from the suburbs who thinks he is above not only the suspect but some of his juror members as well. Juror 11 is an immigrant and only minority on the jury he is aware of the racism the boy is encountering while trying to defend himself at the same time.
Seems very great full for the opportunity to be on the jury and paying very close attention to details. He is being very formal and treating the process with great respect. Very professional man proposing the idea of supporting ones vote with their reasoning of why they made the decision to vote guilty. After listening to the details and reviewing evidence he changes his vote to not guilty. The 8th juror had a choice to conform to what the rest of the jury decided on or stand up for what he thought the evidence really proved.
He was down 11 to 1 and faced the tough task of trying to convince the 11 others opposing him that he was right. When originally asked to explain why he thought the boy was innocent he said that he had reasonable doubt when regarding to the case. He used this time to develop some ideas about the case that could change the minds of others and open the discussion a little more.
As the movie progresses, the 8th juror starts interacting more with the other jurors trying to get them involved in scenarios while using his own skills to start unfolding a totally different story, changing their minds to vote not guilty. This case was solely built on supporting the guilt of the suspect and considering all testimonies and evidence to be true. The alternative verdict of innocence is not an option for the suspect. Matching the story that was told in the court room to the story that the jury has come up with can result in a different alternative and, therefore a different verdict.
When in a negotiation involving a court case, there are many disadvantages. One of those would be the reliability of the information received. In this agreement, the jurors acted out the murder scene in multiple scenarios until they found an alternative possibility.
Testimonials can be heard in the court room but once in the jury room there is no way to find out anything else from them. The decision is also based on if you deem the witness as a credible source.
This definition in the film eleven jurors decide that the defendant is guilty, while the one juror remains alone. The majority holds more power over the l juror alone.
The 8th juror stands by his decision and uses reasoning and analysis to break through to conclusions. The problem with power in a jury means that it can sometimes be seen as control and having loss of control from one side to the other can divide the jury.
The 8th juror realizes that he must try to regain the power to argue his point, but uses only reasoning to support his claims. Reasoning is defined as the act or process of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way dictionary. It should be efficient.
And it should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties. I think this case had a great start to achieve justice. The jury was made of 12 individuals with one common goal. Having the jury reach a non-unanimous vote allows room for open dialogue to happen to try and find a solution. Negotiations should work in the sense that when a positive relationship has been created a good agreement can be reached. In order for the case to rest there must be a unanimous decision of guilty or not guilty.
Every possible alternative must be considered. In the movie, we see how every possible detail and aspect must be considered before reaching an agreement. Initially the first vote was 11 to 1 guilty; it was in the interest of the jurors to analyze if the suspect was really guilty or not.
By juror 8 withholding and educating the members he was able to then deviate all 11 men to switching to a not guilty verdict. After knowing the best ways of negotiating during a conflict, it gives a valuable chance on how to weigh different alternatives and come up with the best solution.
When effective and principled negation skills are known, it leads to quick and effective decision-making. The importance of reasoning shows how you can turn an 11 to 1 vote into a 0 to 12 not guilty. Disclaimer: This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
You can order our professional work here. Sorry, copying is not allowed on our website. We will occasionally send you account related emails.
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.
You cannot copy content from our website. If you need this sample, insert an email and we'll deliver it to you. This sample may contain not original content. Our professionals can rewrite it for you. Set in s America, a court jury is faced with sending a young man to face the death penalty for murder accused of killing his father.
JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser.
Comparison essay comparing Juror 3 and Juror 8 What are some similarities between Jurors 3 and 8? What about differences? Oh gosh, it's been years since I've seen the movie didn't read the play.
12 Angry Men Analysis
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. Justin and R.
12 Angry Men Quotes
And now, gentlemen of the jury, I come to my final instruction to you. Murder in the first degree - premeditated homicide - is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts. You've listened to the testimony and you've had the law read to you and interpreted as it applies to this case. It now becomes your duty to try and separate the facts from the fancy. One man is dead. The life of another is at stake. I urge you to deliberate honestly and thoughtfully. If this is a reasonable doubt - then you must bring me a verdict of "not guilty.
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.
Login Join. Open Document. Comparison essay comparing Juror 3 and Juror 8 What are some similarities between Jurors 3 and 8? What about differences?
12 Angry Men: Juror 8 Is A Hero
The film 12 Angry Men written by Reginald Rose depicts different human personalities attempting to decide the fate of a young man who is accused of killing his father. The jury must determine a verdict of not guilty or guilty, sending a young man to be executed for the crime of murder. However, eleven out of the twelve Jurors have it all figured out, Guilty they agree due to reasons that are illogical. Our writers will create an original "12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose" essay for you. However, Juror 8, the only Juror out of the twelve that took it upon himself to begin a discussion that would soon lead his fellow jury members to re-evaluate their positions by using personal prejudices, experience, evidence, swaying the Jurors to the moral decision. A kid kills his father. Just like that. They let the kids run wild. You know that. As the film continues, the more everyone began to realize how ignorant and cowardly Juror 10 truly is, believing if he keeps spouting his racist rants with aggression he will eventually get everyone to side with him. These people are dangerous.
12 Angry Men Essay Questions
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. Critical Appraisal In my opinion, 12 Angry Men is an awesome movie which keeps the audience captured in its essence. The entire cast has done an amazing work which is in fact the reason for the tremendous success of this movie. From the total duration of 96 minutes only 3 minutes were used to picturise the court room in the beginning and two or three. From this, we might conclude that the jury started with false certainty and deliberated until they uncovered the certain truth. However, the jury is never able to establish whether or not the defendant is innocent. Rather than uncovering certainty, their deliberations uncover doubt—enough doubt that they do not feel that the evidence is enough to convict the.
