12 Angry Men proves that ultimately no one is presumed innocent until proven guilty It is stated in a court of law that every man must be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that the evidence is sufficient enough to prove the defendant is guilty or not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This clear statement is however neglected in the play of ‘Twelve Angry Men’. Rose Reginald clearly portrays that one person can have enough fortitude to stand alone against eleven other jurors who also proved against them that the evidence they argued in the jury room based on the court case contained flaws in them. The decision whether the prosecution was innocent or guilty was being influenced by personal feelings from a number of jurors which was realised
There were instances where he seemed somewhat surprised that others on the jury did not hold his same opinion. This juror began the deliberation under some stress and irritation due to a cold that he was suffering, but he also used his circumstance to disrupt some of the discussion by coughing and blowing his nose. It wasn’t until the vote of not guilty became the majority that he became enraged and went on a rant that he became subdued as he realized the type of person that he had become. After this incident, he did not attempt to disrupt the discussion of evidence and
Each of the others is eventually compelled to change his mind at least once (12 juror changes his mind 3 times), usually thanks to an argument posited by 8th. Yet while he is firm in his position, he is not inflexible. Rather, he regularly and openly admits to his own uncertainties, frequently answering others' questions with an honest 'I don't know'; by not hiding his vulnerability he ultimately wins over the entire jury. Similarly, when he first justifies his vote of 'not guilty', he states ' I haven't got anything brilliant. I only know as much as you do' (p.13).
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.
The other jurors neglected the details in the story and that is what made Juror 8 stand out from the rest. He was able to use critical thinking and analyze the details that were over looked. With that being said, that is where the other jurors lacked in critical thinking. They over-looked the details, which never goes great with critical thinking. One cannot assume and utilize critical thinking.
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.
Various characters throughout the play highlight these differing aspects of Proctor’s personality. Proctor also presents various personality traits as the play progresses, but however at the end he emerges as a strong character who is essentially “good” and who is forgiven and forgives himself for his adultery with Abigail William's. Proctor’s physical description encourages us to see him in a particular way. In the play he is described as, “the kind of man-powerful of body, even-tempered, and not easily led”. Though Proctor is physically strong, it is soon apparent that his weakness comes from his relationship with Abigail.
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.
Even when people are treating him bad, he still just keeps his head high and acts like a gentleman. I remember especially one point in the story, where Bob Ewell spits in Atticus’ face and actually threatens to kill him, but all Atticus does is to wipe his face clean. When Bob then threatens to fight him, Atticus just puts his hands in his pockets and says that he’s too old to fight. That part of the book kind of amazed me. To have the self-control and respect to just walk away from someone who just spit on you, is a skill that not many people have.
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.