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
Juror #1 is the Foreman of the jury. He is serious about his role and tries to run the proceedings in an orderly fashion, reminding the jurors “Just let’s remember we’ve got a first degree murder charge here. If we vote guilty, we send the accused to the electric chair.” Juror #2 is timid, quiet and unsure of himself, finding it hard to maintain an independent opinion until he finds the courage to point out an important question about how the murder was actually committed. Juror #3 is the antagonist. He is a forceful, intolerant bully who sees the case as simple and believes the accused is absolutely guilty.
As they deliberate they are weighing the facts to ensure that they come up with a unanimous decision. The film is a very compelling and provocative one as it examines the jurors personal prejudices, perceptual biases, indifferences, ignorance and fears, that was a contributing factor in their decision making process causing them to ignore the real issues in the case, consequently eleven of the jurors voted for conviction. Fortunately, there was one brave juror who voted not guilty at the start of the deliberation because of his reasonable doubt. He was very persistent and persuasive in forcing the other jurors to slowly reconsider and review the case and eyewitness testimonies against the defendant. As a result of this there were heated discussions, the formation of alliances, the frequent re-evaluation and changing of opinions, votes and the revelation of personal experiences, insults and outburst in the juror room.
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.
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.
The accused is a young 19 year old boy, and the victim is the young boy’s father. When the jurors enter the Jury Room, they all think this case is open and shut – until they take the initial vote, and discover one man voted in favor of not-guilty. All the other jurors seem to think that all the evidence is laid out for them, while Juror Eight is not so sure. Juror Eight reviews all the evidence and is able to find many ways in which reasonable doubt was established. Specifically, in the testimony of the old woman, through the weapon that was used to murder the father, and finally through the testimony of the old man.
Although juror #8 was the only one who voted “not guilty” in the open ballot of the earlier scene, he was as Myers (2010) explained that a minority was most persuasive when their arguments were “consistent, persistent and self-confident”. Most jurors were death qualified and wanted to send the boy to execution. Nevertheless bias and prejudice could be occurred due to the background and characteristics of the defendant as he was coming from a lower class family as well as living in a poor area. (Myers,2010) This was evident by juror #10 who made his decision based on where the defendant lived. 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.
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.
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
In the beginning of the movie, the judge announces that the ultimate jurors are excused, and the other 12 jurors enter the room. Few jurors talk to each other about the task and get to know each other very briefly. The foreman asks for suggestions on how to sit, and they collectively decide to sit according to their jury numbers and they must choose whether to discuss first and then vote, or vote first to see where they stand and then discuss. In the storming phase, the 11 jurors who vote guilty have a conflict with one person who votes not guilty. Collectively the 11 jurors question him as to why he voted guilty.