To render a verdict, they must unanimously vote that the boy did or did not kill his father beyond all reasonable doubt. The jurors have in common that they are middle aged to older white men. However, it soon becomes apparent that this is where the similarities end. Their differing backgrounds, education, jobs, personal experiences and personalities mean that they come to the table with very different skills, beliefs and values to form a multi-faceted team. In fact, it is this dynamic on which the trial-by-jury system relies.
The first Juror to vote not-guilty in the case, is Juror eight, a self-actualized man with an Engineer-type personality, who suggests the jury first discuss the facts of the case before condemning the accused eighteen year old to death. As a natural thinker, expert in rhetoric, and individual with a high social and emotional IQ, which allows him to relate and understand people well, Juror eight manages to put doubt into the minds of the other juror’s about the accuracy of the evidence provided in the courtroom. For instance, he uses a combination of ethos, logos and pathos when explaining how the court story of the club legged old man, who heard the murder and saw the boy running down the stairs, flawed. In the story the club legged old man tells in court, he heard someone cry-out and a body hit the floor above him before he hurried from his bed to the door at the end of the hall, about sixty-five feet away, in ten seconds and opened the door just in time to see the eighteen year old running down the stairs. In the jury room, Juror eight first used pathos, to appease to the emotion and sympathy of the
In the movie 12 Angry Men there are several people who could be considered a hero. Some would say that the true hero was Juror Number 6, who first doubted the guiltiness of the young man; some would say it was the Foreman who kept relative order in the room; however, Juror Number 7 should definitely not be overlooked. Number 7, along with contributing an important piece of knowledge, was the one who stopped the delivery of the guilty verdict, he was the first to vocally agree with Juror Number 6. Juror Number 6 was without a doubt one of the most important men in the room, but without the help of Juror Number 7 the guilty verdict would have been given to the judge. Number 7 was the first true believer; he went out on a limb, in wanting to find the truth, when he could have very easily anonymously voted guilty and they could have been done with the situation.
Juror #2 was a very frantic and nervous type of guy. In the beginning he voted the boy guilty, but by the end of the film his reasonable doubt had him opposed to that previous notion. Juror #3 was the assumed “antagonist” which fits his character very well. He was all for the young boy’s execution the whole time until he glanced at a picture that held some type of symbolism to him when he finally broke down and voted innocent. Juror #4 the Wall Street guy was very analytical about his vote.
According to one account, whenever he accidentally gave a person the wrong amount of change, he would momentarily close up the shop to find the person and give them the correct amount of change, no matter how far the walk. Even his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln commented on his honesty: "Mr. Lincoln… is almost monomaniac on the subject of honesty." (2) His honesty also played a big part in his career as a politician. People would ask him to judge a competition or mediate a fight or argument. According Mr. Robert Rutledge of New Salem, "Lincoln's judgment was final in all that region of country.
The audience gets the sense of guilt from Joe when he talks about Steve Deever in prison. Joe says to Ann: ‘And the next time you write him I like you to tell him what I said.’ Joe Keller is quite selfish here, and trying to make him sound like the bigger man by letting him have a job when Steve gets back out of prison. However, there is repressed guilt behind this imperative as he is the one who got Steve sent to prison by lying. ‘Write him’ is an example of ellipsis; this can infer a hint of an accent and ordering the Ann must write to her father for his benefit. When Joe Keller gets back home from the court case, Miller has created the idea of guilt here by telling Joe’s ordeal when he got home.
And I just received notification that I have jury duty in a couple of weeks. This film has brought me to realize that sometimes there is more to the story but you might have to use lots of logic and reasoning to find it. Unfortunately some of the jurors in this film were not going off of evidence but rather the ethnic group the defendant descends from. Prejudice people in this era, mostly white supremacist caused a lot of mal practice of law and other forms of legal justice. Juror #8 followed up and done his part to open people’s eyes, with his observations true justice was served in the courtroom on that day.
All other eleven men are certain that the boy is guilty. However, Davis smartly utilizes some key tools to move his cause forward. Some of the other men are outraged that Davis could even fathom that the boy is innocent and promptly lash out towards him. Davis, instead of retaliating in kind, uses polite and friendly talk to express his concerns. In fact, throughout the entire film, it is probably Davis’s amicable nature as well as cool reasoning that most persuades the jury members.
According to Peter G. Northouse in his book, Leadership: Theory and Practice”, leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal. It also states that “Influence is the sine qua non of leadership; without influence, leadership does not exist” (3). Leadership is influence and Juror #8 is a perfect example. He was able to influence his fellow jurors to see as he saw and change the vote to not guilty even though it was a long and arduous process. In the movie, Juror #8 portrays a character that gains respect by others for emerging as a leader.