The 10th Juror is prejudiced and racist against the boy and his race as well as his background. The 10th Juror ignores the evidence which results in him continually fighting against those who are voting not guilty, for no particular reason but his prejudice. Juror 11 disagreed with Juror 3, 7 and 10 as Juror 11 talked based on facts and he is strictly looking for justice rather than the people who just voted guilty for no real reason. The playwright indicates that the facts and truth is of outstanding importance when deliberating a judicial trial. Rose explores the idea that extreme prejudice can blind people to the truth.
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.
I only know as much as you do' (p.13). Rather than trying to position himself as an authority on the case or the facts, or build himself up by criticising or belittling others, 8th juror's strength lies in the way that he gradually convinces the jurors that none of them can be certain of the facts, and so the jury must admit reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's guilt and therefore return a verdict of 'not
The jurors cannot base their certainty on concrete evidence as the play indicates that very few facts are absolute because (quote). Instead, they must make up their minds based on the apparent likelihood of various events and on their own personal beliefs. Rose portrays that when it is difficult to maintain certainty about one’s beliefs, in this case the innocence or guilt of the boy, doubt is a reasonable and intelligent state of mind. This is proven by the 4th Juror and the 11th Juror when they say they “ … now have reasonable doubt”. Each of the jurors has a different degree of certainty about the opinions they hold, but cannot be completely sure, as the 9th Juror points out “He doesn’t say the boy is not guilty.
Throughout the play, the exposed biases and flaws of the jurors along with the facts and evidence of the defendant take the audience on a journey of what it is like to be on a jury. The play revolves around the defendant even though he does not appear on stage because Rose wanted the audience to be concerned about the jury rather than the boy. This sixteen year old boy from the slums is the reason the jury is brought together. ‘One man is dead. The life of another is at stake.’ The boy’s life in rested in the jury’s hands.
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.
George does not care about Lennie’s situation and he trust in him as Lennie trust in George. In chapter four, the George says, “A guy needs somebody-to be near him” shows that people need other people to be strong and take better decisions. No matter who is that person and how smart is he or she. George does not care about who Lennie is and he considered Lennie his friend, showing that intelligence is not everything. All Lennie actions show his innocence.
He has witnessed knife fights, an experience that will later help other jurors change their opinions about the guilt of the accused. Juror #6 is a housepainter, a man who is used to working with his hands rather than analyzing with his brain. He is more of a listener than a talker. He does, however, stand up to the bully, Juror #3 when he speaks rudely to Juror #9, an old man, threatening to hit Juror #3 if he ever speaks to the old man like that again. Juror #7 is a slick, obnoxious salesman whose only concern is to get the deliberations over quickly so he can get to that evening’s baseball game.
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
His decisions make a difference between a speedy, unfair case and a long, fair case. He knows what kind of lawyer Atticus is, and chooses him to defend Tom because his past. He knows that Atticus will work his hardest to put in a good fight for Tom, regardless of his skin color. Although during the case Judge Taylor looks to be not paying attention, he’s listening very well. Judge Taylor ends up being very helpful towards Tom; no other white person besides Atticus would take the time to think about a black man.