Juror 3 In 12 Angry Men

678 Words3 Pages
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. He is quick to lose his temper. His desire to convict and punish the defendant is directly related to his feelings of anger and betrayal…show more content…
He has witnessed knife fights, an experience that will later help other jurors change their opinions about the guilt of the accused. Juror #6 is a housepainter, a man who is used to working with his hands rather than analyzing with his brain. He is more of a listener than a talker. He does, however, stand up to the bully, Juror #3 when he speaks rudely to Juror #9, an old man, threatening to hit Juror #3 if he ever speaks to the old man like that again. Juror #7 is a slick, obnoxious salesman whose only concern is to get the deliberations over quickly so he can get to that evening’s baseball game. He assumes that the defendant is guilty and has no interest in discussing it. At one point he makes some prejudiced remarks about immigrants in reference to Juror #11. Juror #8 is a quiet, thoughtful man whose main concern is that justice be done. An architect by profession, he is the first juror to vote “not guilty” on the very first ballot. He is a natural leader who does not argue that the accused is innocent, only that he cannot condemn someone to death without discussing the case

More about Juror 3 In 12 Angry Men

Open Document