Essay about 12 Angry Men Persuasion Techniques

Reginald Rose the author of The Twelve Angry Men effectively describes the different types of personalities that are present at the legal systems in the United States. Juror 8 is the most intelligent, honest and professional juror in the room that can always give solid evidence, brings the readers a theme: One determined and skilled individual can control a lot of influence. Juror 8 presents evidence clearly, making the jurors face the truth about the situation. Juror 8th personality is a direct example of a leader because he uses logic tactics to inform others of the truth. As a result, he makes the jurors believe that the accused teenager is innocent.

Angry! Hostile!” This causes him to not listen to the other jurors opinions and block out any idea of the defendant being innocent. His prejudice is further understood when he says “this kid is guilty. He’s got to burn. We’re letting him slip through our fingers here.” Juror #3 is only able to see the young boy on trial as a symbol of his own son and is therefore unable to look past his own anger towards his son and see the case for what it really is. It is only through the help of juror #8 does juror #3 finally let go of his personal prejudice and sees the truth about the case and changes his vote to not guilty.

He constantly interrupted all the other jurors, and tried to quicken up the pace of the debate with remarks such as, “ Hey, Mr. Foreman, let’s go. What d’you say?” (Rose 9). Juror seven has no interest in the case, only the baseball game. Towards the end of the play, juror seven makes his priorities known to the whole jury. “… I’m a little sick of this whole thing already. All this yakkin’s gettin’ us nowhere so I’m going to break it up here. I’m changing my vote to “not guilty.”” (62). This proclamation creates havoc in the courtroom. All the jurors are mad that he is not taking his duty of juror seriously. Juror seven is not committed to doing justice for the boy throughout the whole

You're not gonna tell me you believe that phony story about losing the knife, and that business about being at the movies. Look, you know how these people lie! It's born in them! I mean what the heck? I don't even have to tell you. They don't know what the truth is! And lemme tell you, they don't need any real big reason to kill someone, either! No sir! [Juror 10, page 51] This type of prejudice offended many of the other jurors, especially Juror 5 who is of similar race to the accused.

The first major fact that influences the juries agreement that the accussed is not guilty is the doubts of a key piece of evidence; the murder weapon, a switch

Juror 8, tries to convince the other Jurors that the kid is not guilty by explaining to them the evidence she believes is fake. He starts talking about the possible ways that people could have lied to make it seem so real. Slowly and slowly, the Juror, starts convincing two other jurors that the boy is innocent. Afterwards, they decide to do another count, in which two

Although a lot of evidence was really convincing, he tried to prove it unconvincing and use sarcasm to convince other jurors otherwise. One example of #7 using sarcasm would be this quote: "Why don't we have them run the trial over..." I think this quote clearly shows that juror #7 is trying to convince other jurors, that court's evidence proves the young man is guilty without reasonable doubt. Also to break #8's spirit he used name calling, another kind of peer pressure. I believe this is a very good example: "The boy is guilty pal, like the nose on your face." The third and last juror I picked was #8, he was not using sarcasm, nor was he muscle flexing, he was using reasonable argument, which helped him convince all the jurors that the young man was innocent. He did not try to convince anybody by screaming at him, on the contrary he tried to go over all the evidence, and he was using intelligent thinking, like trying to calculate exact times, and figure out the correct position of the switch-blade in the chest of the father. He was also trying to recreate a situation to see if indeed one of the witnesses on the stand was lying.

His prejudice caused conflict with all of the other jury members and after some time he too changed his vote to not guilty. The stock broker with the glasses was the eleventh juror to vote not guilty. He was the fourth juror and self assured that his decision was correct and that the defendant had murdered his father. He was involved in simple conflict with the rest of the jurors.

The setting of 12 Angry Men is a jury deliberation room where the jurors are and required to decide the guilt or innocence of an 18 year old that is accused of committing first-degree murder by stabbing his father with a switchblade knife. Witnesses were presented to give evidence of hearing a quarrel; hearing a threat to kill, and have seeing the boy run away. Another witness swore to having seen the boy stabbing his father from a window across from where the murder occurred. Eleven jurors were convinced the boy was guilty and deserved the death penalty. One raised questions he felt had not been asked or had not been pursued by the defense.

The act of being untruthful in a society may arise when most people present false statements. Although Juror 8 has convinced nine other jurors to see reasonable doubt they further discuss a witness in her forties “making a tremendous effort to look thirty-five for her first public appearance” and states that she lived in the opposite apartment from the accused and his father. Juror 9 who points out that “the woman who testified that she saw the killing had these same deep marks on the side of her nose” indicating that she wears eyeglasses and the statement in her testimony was inaccurate. This alters the three other jurors verdict of voting guilty as one witnesses testimony could of made

Logos: It is an appeal to the mind with the use of logic, rationality and critical reasoning to persuade the audience. The author uses logos in his article to make a logical connection with the topic. For example, the author uses the explanation of ideas in the article and employs lots of diagrams in each parts of the topic to show the visualization to support his evidence which is very informative because the visuals give lots of information about what the article is about and that to get attention of the audience.

the one used in the crime to prove that is easy to get an identical knife, and he proved that it

In addition, Juror 8 was also fair. He said "It's not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy

Juror 10 has a very specific personality that can be described in many ways. His character traits are shown in Figure-1. He is very harsh towards the other jurors and doesn’t care for any of them, making the best shape to describe him a triangle. Secondly, Juror 10 is a hateful person and never likes when anyone

The old man gave evidence that he heard the boy say “I’ll kill you” from his apartment below and that he saw the boy running from the down the stairs from the apartment after rising from his bedroom. The old lady saw the boy kill his father through her window, whilst a train was passing. Juror #8 analyses each of these points and makes credible arguments that the conclusion is flawed based on incorrect reasoning, by pointing out inconsistencies in the conclusions reached. The other jurors are content to believe that their reasoning is solid, as they have used examples of deductive reasoning to reach their conclusion. Juror #3 gives his reasons for reaching the conclusion that “It’s quite clear that the boy never went to the movies that night, returned home and killed his father with the knife as identified in Court” (Fonda & Lumet, 1957). Until Juror #8 takes out a similar knife and poses the question that it was possible that another knife was used, Juror #7 calls it a million to one however Juror #8 persists in saying it was possible. He also uses this analysis method to cast aspersions on the second point and third points raised by systematically analyzing each component.