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.
‘I’m sick and tired of facts. You can twist ‘em any way you like.” ‘Twelve Angry Men shows that truth is elusive.’ Discuss The 1950s saw America swept up in the ideological turmoil of the Cold War and the subsequent witch- hunt of the McCarthy trials. It is within this climate that theatrical productions such as Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’ were created. Twelve Angry Men demonstrates the idea that facts, not personal views and assumptions are essential when dealing with justice. The drama’s focus is on a jury’s deliberation over a young man’s fate and the crucial role truth plays in relation to the decision.
Although unsupported at the beginning, he is devoted to justice, and is initially sympathetic toward the 19-year-old defendant. Despite the initial lack of moral support from the fellow members of the jury, throughout the duration of the play Juror 8 reels his fellow jurors in. Rallying encouragement of his opinion, Juror 8 eventually leads the entire jury to acquit the defendant of all conviction. Through the development of Juror 8’s
Danforth shows Salem his authority by wrongly convicting citizens, controlling the court, and enforcing society’s laws. In the play The Crucible, Danforth is considered to be a minor character due to his help in the exposer of the main characters personalities throughout the court room. Also, he is very straight forward and has a static character, which matches his composure due to his belief of being aided by God himself within the court. Some may consider the conflict to be external conflict, or man verses supernatural conflict, in the story because it displays the conflict between the citizens and the Devil, but there is evidence that suggests otherwise. Danforth is a very ethical man, and believes he is very truthful and only convicts those who have done wrong.
He seemed to want approval from other members of the jury by making jokes and not being a part of much of the discussion. He always voted with the majority and did not firmly commit to one side or the other, but rather voted to which way the wind was blowing at that time. There was even one point at which he had voted not guilty, based on the majority at that time, but changed it back to guilty because he felt pressure from one of the other jurors. He definitely appeared to want to avoid confrontation with any of the other jurors. Juror #12 did not offer any suggestions or add to the discussion unless asked to clarify his position, which he really never
8th juror, an architect and father of two, is the only juror to vote 'not guilty' in the first instance. Amongst these twelve anonymous men, he is the first to really gain the audience's attention, willingly and publicly going against the majority of the group by voting 'not guilty' after all the others vote 'guilty' (p.7). In this early action, we can identify many important qualities of his character. He is willing to question the 'facts' with which he has been presented.. He has compassion for the accused.
In the film 12 Angry Men there was only one juror who initially showed critical thinking in his evaluation of the trial. This juror was Juror Number 8. In my opinion, when the story first opened Juror 8 chose ‘not guilty’ because he was unconvinced that the defendant was guilty. However he was also unsure that the defendant was ‘not guilty.’ Because of his uncertainty, Juror 8 had to really on critical thinking skills to get answers and solidify his decision. The film presents the story so that Juror 8 would have to persuade the rest of the jurors to choose not guilty.
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.
Society In Inherit the Wind, Cates challenges the law and, with it, the norms of Hillsboro society. Facing disfavor from the townspeople, he nonetheless decides to persevere in his cause. Describing his feelings of isolation, Cates explains to Drummond, “People look at me as if I was a murderer. Worse than a murderer!” Drummond, who has learned from his years as a criminal-defense attorney, along with his own struggles as an agnostic and an advocate for unpopular causes, empathizes with Cates. As Drummond says, “It’s the loneliest feeling in the world—to find yourself standing up when everybody else is sitting down.” Both Cates and Drummond experience a struggle against mainstream society.
The Power Of Persuasion It seems almost impossible for a single juror of twelve to persuade the rest to follow his verdict. Well in The Runaway Jury by John Grisham he proves just that in a story based on real events about a character(Nicholas Easter) whose original plan was to help out and individually he met by working from the inside out and vice versa to persuade the opinions of the others into swaying the verdict to go his way. Grisham writes this story to show relevance in how even the most common of people can have the most influential impact on your opinion of how you perceive something is to be. Nicholas Easter is your common randomly chosen candidate for a jury case that happens to be a lawsuit against the major tobacco company. He is chosen among twelve in an non-biased research of sixty by agents who state “Safe to say we’ll take number fifty-seven”(pg.7) after secretly photographing this juror “half-hidden smoking a cigarette.”(pg.7) Nicholas who has worked in a computer store for a couple of months, apparently a part time student, and was not a smoker, to the agents knowledge anyways; Is met up with a woman of middle age who happens to be a smoker and will later on give excruciating details of jury members to help Nicholas worm his way into throwing off agents and influencing the others.