Characteristics Of Juror 3

Initially, Juror 8 stands alone during the first vote. For clarification, he doesn’t cower and change his initial vote when he notices that all the other people in the room are against him. Eight didn’t succumb to peer pressure and made it his duty to ensure everyone else sees what he does. Second, Juror 5 changed his vote from “guilty” to “not guilty” because he realised how much the accused has in common with his own upbringing. For instance, both of them grew up in the slums and were often negatively stereotyped. People tend to agree with others if they find something that they have in common. Lastly, Juror 11 called Juror 7 out for misusing his freedoms as an American citizen and his responsibilities as a Juror of the court. Being that Juror Seven only changed his vote because he had tickets to a play, Juror 11 was enraged, mainly because not everyone has the same opportunities as they do at the moment. When Juror 11 lived in Europe, he never had opportunities like this so he was taking it seriously, especially because the life of someone else was in jeopardy. Quite often literature mirrors real life, as is the case with the recent shooting in Las Vegas when complete strangers risked their own safety or put their own lives on hold to help when others were in

Juror is polite and makes a point of speaking with proper English grammar. He is the fourth to ultimately vote not guilty

This demonstrates once again that juror 3 is the most dangerous and that he only listens to what he wants to listen to because juror 3 keeps downplaying the evidence that proves the defendant is innocent and he keeps trying to disprove it without listening to the evidence

The personality of juror # 10 was one of hatefulness and anger. This juror was prejudice against the kid because he was from the slums. Juror # 10 said something in the movie about not being able to trust people who are from the slums. Juror # 10 had several outbursts and had a heinous attitude through most of the movie. Juror # 10 was the one who did most of the talking, when it came to trying to convince Juror # 8 that the kid was guilty. There was another Juror that had a roundabout same type of personality coming into the juror’s room as juror # 10. The juror # 3 was also bitter and obstinate towards the others, specifically when it came down to several of the other jurors changing their opinion of guilty to not guilty. Juror # 3 became hot headed and very loud and obnoxious towards everyone. Both Juror # 10 and juror # 3 were only looking at the eye witness testimony,

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.

Juror number three is an arrogant, self-minded and extremely ambiguous has had a personal experience in his life, that’s why he wants the boy dead. His son ran away from a fight when he was nine. “ I saw him. I was so ashamed I almost threw up.” Then when he was older the boy then hit him in the face and he has never seen him since. This puts a pre- judged view inside of his head. In the end he thinks to himself that it is not his son that is on trial therefore he can not treat him like that. He can’t hate all teenagers because of his son. Juror number ten is similar to number three in

Juror 4 is able to remain calm and composed throughout the most stressful of situations. While Juror 10 exhibits racial outbursts; “They get drunk”, “That's the way they are!”, “VIOLENT!”, “These people are dangerous. They're wild. Listen to me. Listen.” Juror 4 sat through this entire scene without saying a word. It is only until Juror 10’s monologue is finished that Juror 4 speaks, calmly asking Juror 10 to “Shut [his] filthy mouth.” Juror 4 never discredits or implies anything towards the defendant and is always careful of what he says. After Juror 10’s tirade, Juror 4 tries to soften the impact created by 10; “Slums are potential breeding grounds for criminals.” He never attacks or hypes the situation at hand. He draws around ‘potential’ possibilities. Juror 4 initially had his doubts at the start of the case but was the only character that overcame his predisposition based on the analysis of facts and evidence. Rose’s character and only this character had the intelligence, confidence and persistence to keep his head in the tense moment Juror 10 created.

The first juror was the foreman. He was the task leader of the group, taking initiative to sit the people down, numbering them, and telling the jurors when they could go on breaks. This juror goes over the process and rules the men will be using, and sets up the first voting. He also tries to keep the jurors on task and organized. Juror 2 is anxious man. This juror was easily persuaded to change his opinion about the case and tended to have the same opinion of the person who spoke before him. He played the role of a tension releaser which was seen when he offered the men cough drops in tense situations. Juror 3 is temperamental, opinionated, strong, loud, biased, stubborn and intolerable man. This man does not want to hear the opinions of the other jurors and is sure that the boy is guilty. He plays the part of the central negative in the group. When he doesn’t like what other people are saying he begins to yell and challenges that person speaking. He began to be dominating and blocking towards the end. Even though he did not have a statement to backup his vote, he stood alone just because he didn’t want to be proved wrong. His own problems with his son abandoning him also

His troubled past with his own son was the cause of his disdain towards the young man on trial in the murder of his father. Juror three took the situation of the trial personally and therefore his own critical thinking was impaired by his basis. Once he realized he was not being attacked personally by the other jury members his ego broke down and he then changed his vote to not

Juror 2 was the most soft spoken of the group. He plays the role of the newcomer and shows signs of insecurity which leads to him not being taken seriously and is often talked over by the other members. When asked for his vote he stated “Oh…well, I just think he’s guilty… I mean no one proved otherwise.” Not only does this make him seem insecure while he says this, but it’s his lack

He plays the role of 'appointed leader', or the individual who is assigned the leader position from the onset. A simple man who clearly does not understand the complexity of the task that lies before him but is trying to do everything not to let anyone else find this out. He appears at ease only once during the film ' when he talks about football. He has the misfortune to be selected Foreman of the jury ' a task he clearly does not enjoy. Juror #2 is a small, quite man who is clearly unaccustomed to giving his own opinion much less to expecting his views to be of any importance. In his subdued 'observer' and meek 'information giver' role, No. 2 apparently finds comfort in his job ' he is an accountant. Juror # 3 is probably the most complex personality in the film. He starts off like a pleasant self-made successful businessman, analyzing the case impartially, explaining the arguments well and is reasonably self-assured. As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate exploding in disbelieving anger and seems somehow to be personally involved with the case. His motivation for behaving as he does is revealed when he discloses that he's not on good terms with his own son. Illusions to his animosity toward youth were made when he says that kids today have no respect and that he has not see his son in over a decade. No.3 namely plays the 'aggressive', 'dominator' and 'blocker' roles. His personal baggage with his own son 'blocked' or

It is not until the end of the film that the audience fully understands why Juror #3 is hostile and angry. He hinted earlier in the movie that his son and he got into a fight and his son left. This anger that he shows through the movie is the anger that he has for his son leaving. Because of this anger, he does not think critically. He heard the basic facts and made his decision off of that. Without questioning the evidence, he is quick to form an opinion and defend it despite the other details presented by the other jurors. He lacks the ability to successfully critically think because he does not analyze the evidence nor does he present his own arguments skillfully. He only defends his stance based off of personal pathos which hinders his ability to critically think.

Dominating personalities makes it difficult for the other jury members to voice their own opinions and beliefs of the evidence. The 2nd juror fails to establish a dominating personality at the launch of the discussion of the boy’s judgment. This is exhibited when he struggles to inform 3rd that “there are some people that haven’t talked” about their reasons for the boys guilt and 3rd answers by stating “they can talk whenever they like”, however he does not allow the 2nd juror to voice his opinion and to “just be quiet”. This dominate power over 2nd by 3rd is further seen when the 2nd comments that the way of the stabbing was “interesting”. In consequence causing 3rd to query 2nd if the killing method actually “proves anything” and his controlling

Juror 3 was basing his failed relationship with his son on the accused boy. The reason that he had such a bad relationship with his son is because when the boy was young, he ran away from a fight and Juror 3 said: “I’m going to make a man out of you or I’m going to bust you up into little pieces trying”. Later on, when his son was older, they got into a fight and Juror 3 hasn’t seen him since. This experience probably left him the impression that all kids take their loved ones for granted, and that they deserve severe punishments. Juror 3 is not the type to provide the sharpest evidence or information, but he is very determined to prove that the accused really did murder the victim. Juror 8 practically gives nothing away about his real life, probably because he did not want to add his own prejudices to the case. Juror 3 gave both his ill-mannered personality and bigotry away in the play.

My favorite character was juror 8 because he was different, He went with what he wanted and didn't care if he was different. He didn't just want it to be simple because a young boys life was on the line for the murder of his own father. So he argued and stated the facts and re created some of them trying to figure the case out unlike the others that just wanted it to be done. Juror 8 was all alone than started to changed people's votes about the young boy over the time he explained and talked upon the scene and witnesses. Over that time he explained and argued with most of the jurors and never backed down once. He stuck to his vote and was determined to change others, He knew the boy didn't have much but he still didn't want to play with