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.
Although the 8th Juror was the only individual in the jury room, who did not raise his hand to vote guilty in the initial vote, as he “[couldn’t] send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” He still held firm to his ideals of just talking about the case before any actions were to be taken. Rose symbolises the 8th Juror as a representative for the defendant, as he is able to go against the majority and put forth his own ideals that are not just concentrated around his own personal emotions. Rose highlights this characteristic within the 8th Juror to mirror the way in which Americans were faced with the task of either conforming to McCarthyism, or simply holding onto their own ideals. Rose incorporates the notion within the 8th Juror that standing alone does not mean that a person is ignorant, but are using the facts to come to a conclusion where there is “a reasonable doubt.” By placing the jury men into a scenario that can be related to American’s in the 1950’s, he emphasises that the actions of the 8th Juror within the room is minute in comparison to the actions taken by Americans during that era. Through the persuasion of the 3rd and 10 Juror’s, they are able to control the thoughts of the other men as a result of their personal bias.
WHY WAS IT SO DIFFICLUT FOR THE JURORS IN TWELVE ANGRY MEN TO MAKE A FINAL VERDICT Reginald Rose’s play Twelve Angry Men portrays the fallibilities of the social justice system. The 8th juror was the main character that allowed the defendant to get a fair trial, however he also made it harder to decide the final verdict. Other jurors, like jurors 9 and 5, who had reasonable doubt, helped the architect reach his “not guilty” verdict, by clarifying some of the testimonies and evidences that were given to them, which had an impact on the final decision. While other jurors such as 10 and 3, only served to make the conclusion to the jury more mystifying, by standing in the way of other’s arguments, using aggression, prejudice and forceful tactics. Therefore, the dangers of specific qualities in people are displayed to the readers, using the jurors as microcosms for the different groups of society.
Juror #8, played by Henry Fonda, had the conviction to stand up to the group with the initial lone “not guilty” vote that ultimately ended up a not guilty vote for the accused. Juror #9 was an elderly gentleman and Juror #10 was also an elderly gentleman who was very staunch in his argument that the defendant was guilty. He eventually would lose the support of his followers towards the end via his support of his stereotypical statements such as
That was presented as evidence of White's depression. It wasn't a serious legal conclusion, and there was a lot of other evidence of White's depression at trial. But reporters called it the "Twinkie defense," and it caught on in popular lore. White was eventually convicted of voluntary manslaughter as a result of his depression. While that kind of mental illness isn't enough for a finding of not guilty by
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’.
Juror 4 undermines himself as he said that the boy must be guilty as he can’t remember the name of the films that he saw but when asked himself about the last films that he saw he cannot remember the names of the films and the name of the actors and actresses in them. Juror 3 undermines himself as he said as the boy was heard saying I’m going to kill you this means that he must have done it as saying this means that you really want to kill them and you will while later in the play after being fired up and agitated by juror 8 the 3rd juror says ‘I’m going to kill
In The Lottery, the younger generations of the town's population have begun to speak out against the annual stoning (Jackson). These youths cite the fact that many neighboring towns have already done away with the lottery, and they feel as though they too should dispense with the antiquated ritual. These youths represent the mirror image of the groups who opposed Hitler's regime in Nazi Germany. Also in the story is an elderly male character who reprimands the youths for their idealism and departure from norms and traditions (Jackson). He is more comfortable and content to keep with the ritual of stoning an innocent town's person to death every year.
Finally, the juror who pushed for not guilty from the start gets the coat of the juror who was the last hold out for guilty and helps him into it. No dialogue is spoken. Four times, gestures of kindness between men who were at each others’ throat take place. This silent scene is so much more powerful than if one of the characters had simply said, “I think we’ve come to a place where we can respect each other despite our differences.” Making the same point with non-verbal cues was much more effective story telling. According to me, all of the jurors except one showed passive behavior in the start of the movie.
In the beginning of the play, when the first votes are called, Juror 8 is the only juror to vote not guilty based on his uncertainty of the defendant’s innocence and how easily the other opposing jurors are willing to send a young boy to the chair. Although he recognises that the evidence suggests a guilty verdict, juror 8 stands alone as