He doesn’t want to vote guilty until he has enough evidence that this boy did indeed kill his father. Many different points are made about the boy who supposedly stabbed his father, that are cross examined well by juror #8 who still stands alone at not guilty. All of the evidence that the 11 jurors found contains flaws in
Reasonable doubt can be a very difficult term to understand. If a jury has any reasonable doubt that the accused may not have committed the crime, then it must enter a not guilty verdict. Each person may have their own opinion of the term reasonable doubt. In the play Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, Juror Eight stands against 11 other men, fighting to find reasonable doubt in a homicide case. The accused is a young 19 year old boy, and the victim is the young boy’s father.
Jake builds a bridge with the audience towards the end when he starts to get emotional and cry. That shows the viewers that he is not only professionally involved with the trial but also very emotionally involved as well. Finally, the closing argument, most importantly, uses Ethos. It uses a fair, open-minded, honest, and well-informed opinion about the subject matter. Now here is a white male, defending a black father who killed two white men after raping his 7
"Set in the sweltering summer of 1957, Reginald Rose bases his play “12 Angry Men” on the notion that personal experience has the capacity to influence and sway our decisions. *Rose specifically amplifies this ideology as throughout the play, as a myriad of contrasting backstories are seen to be the foundation of the characters judgments. Set amongst a court case apropos to a 16 year old boy convicted of killing his father, the “reasonable doubt” underlying his conviction is explicitly supported by one Juror 8 amidst 11 others. Demonstrating the diversity of the Jurors, Rose illustrates the “2 America’s” that can be observed in the different Jurors identities. In addition the jurisprudence of America enshrines the belief that “the multitude
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.).
Many believe that racism is excluded from the United States Justice System, but that claim is not necessarily true. Since 2002, 12 people have been executed where the defendant was white and the murder victim black, compared with 178 black defendants executed for murders with white victims. This alarming statistic shows that racial injustice and inequality is still alive and well in the United States Justice System. From a moral standpoint, this is a complete outrage that even in modern day society, after the efforts of men like Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, still goes on to this day. The 14th amendment, which was ratified in 1868, includes a Due Process Clause that ensures all persons in the United States shall be granted a fair and just trial that does not infringe upon the rights of any persons.
But nobody knows if they really are. Since personal emotions had been involved, not many jurors were able to construct arguments without their prejudice. As for 8th Juror, although he might seem to be sympathetic to the unfair judicial system to the defendant, but he could still present his ideas without personal feelings involved. That was why he appeared to be different than the others. Apart from using 8th Juror to strengthen the importance of being gentle and rational, 3rd and 10th Juror were also used to express the same idea through a different way.
The film presents the story so that Juror 8 would have to persuade the rest of the jurors to choose not guilty. But I believe what happened in the room is that each of the jurors persuaded each other but it was through Juror 8 that they were able to exercise their critical thinking skills. The jury was convinced that the defendant was guilty based on solid evidence that was resented. They took the case at face value and did not bother to question the time frame and events that happened were plausible. The other jurors neglected the details in the story and that is what made Juror 8 stand out from the rest.
LEADERSHIP WITHIN 12 ANGRY MEN Andy Townsend Regent University THE LEADERSHIP WITHIN 12 ANGRY MEN The 1957 Film, 12 Angry Men, is about a jury on a murder case, with the verdict resulting in a matter of life or death for the accused. They must come up with a verdict for whether the boy is guilty or not for killing his father. The background of the boy on trail shows that he had been brought up in a slum and had a history of violence in the past. The jury is convinced that the boy is guilty, except for one member that sends the group into deliberation to make the ultimate decision of the boys’ fate. Juror number eight, played by Henry Fonda, is the member who stands
The 1957 drama 12 Angry Men start when the jurors adjourned to make their final decision about a murder case. An eighteen-year-old boy is accused of stabbing his father to death. The conflict is between one juror who isn’t convinced the boy is guilty and the other eleven jurors who initially voted guilty. This movie is full of great examples of conformity, obedience, compliance, influence and persuasion. By definition, conformity is a change in behavior or belief as a result of real or imagined pressure.