He believes that the defendant is guilty purely because his own son retaliated against him and punched him in the face, making him believe that all teenagers are just ‘no good delinquents’. This proves to us that unlike juror 8, juror number 3 does not hold the integrity value. This is one of the many reasons that juror 8 and juror 3 conflict. Juror 8 and juror 3 conflict throughout the entire play because of these obvious differences in personalities and beliefs. One important conflict between them was when juror 3 says “Well I told you, I think the kids guilty, what else do you want?” and juror 8 replies with “Your arguments, we’re not convinced, we’re waiting to hear them again, we have time.”
Unmistakable through juror 10’s hostile and aggressive tone displayed, he is led to believe that not only is the boy from a ‘low social economic’ background but “…he’s type…they are- wild animals… they’re going to breed us out of existence.” His prejudice opinions constantly blind him from declaring ‘reasonable doubt’ despite current mishaps presented in the evidence. He continued to manipulate the facts, data and statistics in order to retain his masculinity until proven wrong. Juror 10 did not see eye to eye with any other juror or character and announced that it was a “waste of time.” Furthermore juror 10 continued to vote ‘guilty’ in his ambiguous attempt to send the boy off to an electric chair, helped prove Reginald Rose’s perceptions of letting prejudice and stereotypical thoughts cloud the mind of seeing the truth. Unlike Juror 10, juror 3’s reasons and logic were question due to his previous feud with his ashamed history with his son. Personal vendettas presented in juror 3 prevent him from having ‘reasonable doubt’.
In another one of Jost’s articles, “The Jury System,” he points out, “Public discontent with the jury system appears to be increasing. The O.J Simpson murder trial dramatized concerns about jury selection, trial procedures, and the possible influence of race on jury verdicts in criminal cases” (Jost). That being said, it is clear that prejudice can influence the outcome of a court case, thus wrongfully allowing a guilty man to walk free, or vice-versa, imprisoning an innocent man for a crime he did not commit. This example brings up another flaw in the judicial system:
He once said, that it wasn’t ‘easy’ for him to send a boy off to die ‘without thinking about it first’. His approach of keep questioning were viewed as unknowledgeable and illogical, as all the evidences were against the defendant. ‘Facts’ were being thrown around the room without much thought. For 10th Juror, he kept using ‘facts’ to attack groups of people, claiming they were ‘born to lie’. But nobody knows if they really are.
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’.
Fonda is constantly in a conflict between jurors three and ten. Both of these jurors had stereotypes and were close-minded to the possibly of the defendant not being guilty. Juror number three was the hardest to convince, he was very aggressive and argumentative to his case, but was also stereotyping the boy because it reminded him of his son. Jurors, three and ten, had a controlling style of conflict, they use bullying when other members gave input against their opinion. However, members like the old man, juror nine, were more open minded and interested in what Fonda had to say.
The movie “Capturing the Friedmans” depicts the story of Arnold and Jesse Friedman, a father and son who pled guilty to multiple accounts of sodomy. The film contains many different accounts from people involved in the case with conflicting views on the situation. This leads to confusion within the audience’s minds on weather or not the Friedman’s are guilty. I believe that the Friedmans are guilty, however I believe that the circumstances were exaggerated and that the things they were tried for were blown up out of proportion. First, Arnold Friedman admits to being a pedophile and sexually abusing young boys.
The vote changed 11 not guilty to 1 guilty. That one standing man was the main juror up for sending the boy to the chair. The man had a bad experience and a kind of hate towards young kids because he once had a boy who walked out on him. However by everyone bringing all the attention towards him the man eventually tried to make a point and stay with his guilty vote, but soon enough he broke down and cried. As he cried, he yelled out not guilty.
Jem and Scout stats to become aware that all this is caused by segregation. Since Atticus is defending Tom Robinson in court Mrs. Dubose starts to insult Atticus for ‘lawing for *******’ which infuriates both of his children. [Theme: The injustice of racism and segregation] 2. “There’s something in our world that makes men lose their heads- they couldn’t be fair if they treid. In our courts, when it’s a white man’s word against a black man’s word, the white always wins.
The structure that the gang gives the kids leads them into bad situations, and violence. The increase of divorce has a huge impact on children, which leads many kids living in bad neighborhoods because the parents can’t afford to live anywhere else. Violence in today’s television and video games, parents that are separated, financial struggles can allow gangs in bad areas to set children up for a violent