The old man who first changed his vote acknowledged this admirable transformational leadership quality when he commented: “it is not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others. He gambled for support and I gave it to him”. A transformational leader is a role model: • He powerfully modeled having a thoughtful, investigative and inquiring mind to the rest of the jury members by re-examining the key evidences of the prosecutor and the 2 witnesses. Other members of the jury soon followed his example and started raising “reasonable doubts” which led to a unanimous “Not guilty” verdict. • He Frequently reinforces that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and that if there is reasonable doubt, then they should acquit the kid • This character has a very clear idea of what the goal is here.
Although unsupported at the beginning, he is devoted to justice, and is initially sympathetic toward the 19-year-old defendant. Despite the initial lack of moral support from the fellow members of the jury, throughout the duration of the play Juror 8 reels his fellow jurors in. Rallying encouragement of his opinion, Juror 8 eventually leads the entire jury to acquit the defendant of all conviction. Through the development of Juror 8’s
In the film 12 Angry Men there was only one juror who initially showed critical thinking in his evaluation of the trial. This juror was Juror Number 8. In my opinion, when the story first opened Juror 8 chose ‘not guilty’ because he was unconvinced that the defendant was guilty. However he was also unsure that the defendant was ‘not guilty.’ Because of his uncertainty, Juror 8 had to really on critical thinking skills to get answers and solidify his decision. The film presents the story so that Juror 8 would have to persuade the rest of the jurors to choose not guilty.
Matt Alley Personal Law 11/4/08 Hour 7 12 Angry Men The Juror that thought the boy was not guilty was Juror #8 or indentified as David at the end of the film. I thought this juror was the best one of the group. I belief he was the best because he kept and open mind the whole time. He listened to what others had to say, and he didn’t let his emotions take over and was on time for the case. The only mistake I noticed that Juror #8 made was when he went an investigated the case on his own.
8th juror, an architect and father of two, is the only juror to vote 'not guilty' in the first instance. Amongst these twelve anonymous men, he is the first to really gain the audience's attention, willingly and publicly going against the majority of the group by voting 'not guilty' after all the others vote 'guilty' (p.7). In this early action, we can identify many important qualities of his character. He is willing to question the 'facts' with which he has been presented.. He has compassion for the accused.
Juror #9 was an elderly yet observant man and it was important I feel that he was the first to change his mind. Age has its rewards and hopefully still today, people respect their elders. If anyone should have been stuck in his ways and condemn the defendant based on preconceived notions or bias, it was this juror. It was only after Juror #9 changed his mind, that it seemed possible the defendant “could be” innocent. Juror #9 stated that he chose to respect the opinion of juror #8 (who was the sole opponent to the original verdict of “guilty”) and decided he wanted to hear more evidence prior
The beginning of the movie demonstrated the effect of the normative influence of the jurors when they were voting publicly, which the majority of them voted “guilty”, it could be due to the reason of group pressure and wanted to be liked by others if their decisions were uniformed even thought they might privately disagreed. Therefore it could be explained by the vote differed when voting secretly and openly. In addition most of the jurors did not have enough arguments to support themselves, eg: when juror #7 was asked his reason behind, he looked at juror #3 and said “you tell them”. The
For instance, in the motion picture, Twelve Angry Men (1957), juror 8, played by Henry Fonda, was both effective and appropriate in his communication style because he did not set himself apart from the group’s objective which was to go over the evidence piece by piece and give the defendant a fair trial. He did not approach the matter as though he was right and the others were wrong, instead he raised the question, “did the evidence produce by the prosecuting attorney rise to level beyond a reasonable doubt?” Although he was the only juror at the beginning of the deliberation to vote not guilty, he remain open minded, competent, and raised some very grave inconsistencies that inevitably helped the other jurors arrive at the facts of the case objectively. According to Rothwell (2013), ”we cannot determine what is appropriate and effective without knowing the rules operating in a given situation”. The rules in this situation were that every juror was entitled to their own opinion and able to express it without an onslaught by the group. Juror 8, Henry Fonda, and juror 9, Joseph
He also refused to take off his hat as a sign of respect to the judges who did attend. This seemed to confirm in the minds of the judges that Charles, even when he was on trial for his life, remained arrogant and therefore a danger to others as he could not recognise his own faults. This trial is unfair in so many ways: Firstly the setting up of the court that was to try Charles 1st was written by forerunner. Secondly, the fact that people weren’t allowed into the trial just because they didn’t agree with it, in my opinion this is the most unfair part of the trial because everybody is entitled to their opinion, even back then. Thirdly, only just over half of the 46 judges agreed to the trying of Charles 1st.
Sarah Dodge Period 5 5/11/09 Twelve Angry Men The boy was not guilty in my opinion. The jury did in fact vote the boy not guilty even though at the beginning of jury session all, but one man voted the boy to be guilty. I believe that there was not enough conclusive evidence to state that the boy was in fact guilty of murdering his father. One of two eye witness on the case was proven or seen to not be wearing her eye glasses in attempts to look younger, yet this meant that the lady needed eye glasses and that it was not probable for her to have seen the boy murder his father through the windows of the train. I believe that with the evidence against the boy or in the crime scene at all there is room for reasonable doubt in the case