In many cases Twelve Angry Men shows how personal feelings can intertwine with decision making. The play shows how jurors could instantly presume one is guilty before thinking about the truth behind the evidence, and if it’s moral at all to vote guilty and deprive a man’s life for convenience and selfish acts for most of the jurors. “I think maybe we owe him a few words.” The eighth juror here tries to calm down the jurors In the courtroom and gives a chance of opinion so the members of the jury can discuss and give enlightened hope for the defendant. This occurs before the tenth juror states “He got a fair trial didn’t he”. The tenth juror is evocative of how he believes that the defendant doesn’t deserve any reasoning.
Social background, personalities and beliefs influence the way individuals think. The 3rd Juror was a vengeful and aggressive man who is the last juror to change his vote to not guilty. At the end of ACT I, when he yells angrily at the 8th Juror ‘I’ll kill him, I’ll kill him’, the 8th Juror says ‘you don’t really mean you’ll kill me, do you?’ This conflict contributes to a major turning point because it brings closer to a unanimous ‘just verdict’ as other jurors learnt about flaws from strongly prejudiced people, like the 3rd juror. He contradicts himself by saying ‘Anybody says a thing like that…they mean it’ earlier in ACT 1 because he struggles to detach his personal feelings from the boy as he sees his own estranged son in the 16 years old defendant. Furthermore, the 10th Juror’s angry monologue at the end of ACT II, he demonizes people who are ‘different’.
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.
On any given night, in any given town, in any given bar, there is always somebody who is the drunkest person in the bar. Said person has a responsibility to create friction; to drive the plot. They don’t hire bouncers and doormen to scan ID’s. Of course that ends up being part of their duties but not why they were hired. When that drunken slob, that hiked-skirt-lush, that drooling sack of gin and pretzels wheels around on the barstool, they are like some sort of high-tech military genius.
Colonel Sarty Snopes, his son, realizes so when he has to choose between doing the right thing or loyalty to his family, his father. The story stops being about a war between the wealthy and poor and more about choosing what he believes or his family believes. The story opens with Sarty and Abner in a courtroom. Abner has been accused of arson and Sarty must testify. Sarty must choose between going with the views of his morally corrupt father or declaring his individuality by testifying against his father and leaving his family behind.
“Good by mr wigin tell them im strong tell them im a man”(234). Jefferson was at the wrong place at the wrong time when two other black men tried to rob a white man’s liquor store. After the death of these men, instead of calling 911 he steals some money out the register and a bottle of wine off shelf. After Jefferson has been sentenced to death by execution, his godmother, Miss Emma, requests that Grant Wiggins teaches him to be a man before he dies instead of allowing him to die as a hog-which is what Jefferson’s defense attorney refers to him as. Although Grant initially doesn’t want to help Jefferson, he gradually changes throughout this book and accomplishes his goal of transforming him into a man.
He explained that white men always win and cheat, so the white men are the victors but the white man is always a bad man. This shows that it can be prejudice because Tom`s story was not heard and he was accused of being guilty and so he was killed. In cases of Tom being wrongly accused, harassment by others, on Scout and Atticus defending the jail can have an opinion of people that is destructive. When the group of men came to kill Tom, it shows that if Scout and Jem did not have a father would be the same thing for Walter Cunningham.
Savannah Stephens English Honors Juror Seven Twelve angry men is a drama about a sixteen year old boy who allegedly killed his father. When the only people deciding your fate are complete strangers you hope that they take a second look at what the facts are. Juror VII stands out, with barely a background, rude actions, and a confidence that he’s never going to be persuaded. Slicks, self-centered, jerk who is a salesman who wants to be anywhere but in this juror meeting. He talks about how he made a fortune selling marmalade (Pg.).
In this speech Colonel Sheburn attacks the cowardice of the mob, for they don’t have the courage to attack him one on one. In this scene Twain Depicts how people behave more drastically when they can hide behind a crowd. Also, in another scene the King and the Duke are impersonating the Wilkes brothers, so they can receive money from Peter Wilkse will, but the real Wilkes brothers end up showing up. The whole crowd starts to get exited yelling things “like, Le’s duck’ em! Le’s drown’ em!
Prejudice and Stereotyping Twelve Angry Men shows that prejudice can be a dangerous thing. When they first enter the jury-room, many jurors are ready to convict the defendant, not just on the evidence and arguments presented by the prosecution but, frighteningly, because the boy is a member of a social group for whom the jury hold no respect, for whom the stereotypes are of hopeless lives and criminal behaviours. As 4th puts it, ‘slums are breeding grounds for criminals’ (p.12) and 10th adds, ‘the kids who crawl outa those places are real trash’ (p.12). While there may be statistical or subjective justifications for some of these opinions, there is little evidence to show that the opinions explain this particular murder. Certainly the