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
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.
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 film “Twelve Angry Men” is a very interesting and captivating one. This film features twelve jurors who are middle-aged men. A young boy is on trial for the murder of his father and these jurors are faced with the responsibility of deciding whether or not he is guilty. However, the room that they deliberate in is very uncomfortable and hot. As they deliberate they are weighing the facts to ensure that they come up with a unanimous decision.
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.
He starts to listen to the contradictions of the evidence the court and what lawyers came up with, he also took all of the evidence that Juror VIII had proved in the juror room. He sees that the other juror’s reasons for voting “Not guilty” actually makes sense. He just didn’t want to show them that he was wrong and they were right. After a while he grows tired of their arguments and how the right “not guilty” side is. He starts to agree and when he’s asked why he changed his mind, he simply replied.
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.
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.
He always goes ahead. And he can do it, because his beliefs are stronger than anything else. In fact, he even lost his family because they didn’t share the same point of view (they still think all whites are the same as the ones who arrested Mandela 30 years ago). Respect is another important thing about Mandela. It’s shown all along the movie, starting at the beginning, when he asks to meet everybody in the office in order to give his first speech about his conception of the new government.