Eight Juror Murder Case Essay

Therefore, other jurors believe that after his acts of anger, he is over the top and their trust in his thoughts begins to waver. Regardless of the majorities vote, juror three’s vote remains unchanged from guilty because of his highly opinionated attitude and prejudiced ways. Juror eight’s bigoted traits and statements eventually cause all the other jurors to leave him for juror eight’s

11. Juror Eight says he had a peculiar feeling about this trial. What does he think was wrong?

In this novel, twelve jurors are designated to choose the verdict of a case. A sixteen-year-old boy is accused of murdering his father. If the jurors’ verdict is guilty, then the boy will receive a death sentence. The chosen jurors are locked in a room to decide the verdict, guilty or innocent. At the beginning, only one juror chose to vote not guilty, for the sake of reasonable doubt. The juror made thought out points and persuasively changed all other other jurors minds. By the end, all jurors chose to vote not guilty, except one. This particular juror voted guilty because he compared the defendant to his own son, whom he had problems with. This prejudice blocked his mind, making him confuse facts with his own judgment.

Juror Eight kept in his mind that he needs to have evidence and think about the evidences critically and proof to other jurors that the possibility of the defendant being guilty could be less than what they think. He did not get personal about the case and stood up by himself ignoring other ways of thinking. This shows how Juror Eight was very patient even though at the beginning of the play he was all by himself. At the end, he was successful in convincing the other jurors because he understood the background and the personality of each juror as the time passed. This quote signals Juror Eight’s determination and patience to examine all the evidence and make sure the evident character of the defendant’s murder. The honest and simply request encourages a great deal of powerful tension among the jurors, many of whom are given to conflicting views.

Juror No. 8 wasn’t trying to defend the boy he was just doing his job, because of that he slowly became a hero without knowing it. Juror No. 8 could of went and decide to choose guilty but he didn’t because he knows it wouldn’t be right not even sharing a thought about it. He continued to convince all eleven jurors that their was reasonable doubt and that the boy was

The 3rd juror believes that “we would be better off if we “took these tough kids and slapped ‘em down before they make trouble. Save us a lot of time and money.”

When the Foreman lets everyone say the facts and information and it was juror sevens turn, he brings up his record as a point: “Look at this kid’s record. At fifteen he was in reform school. He stole a

The play “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a play about a jury of twelve men deciding if a defendant is guilty or not in a murder case. I believe that Juror 9’s ability to change the vote of many other jurors by his explanations of the witnesses can demonstrate the challenges and benefits to the jury system. A jury system can be very favorable when proving a defendant's verdict for a crime, but there can be times where the jury will have some defiance. Juror 9’s statements really show what the jury system is like for the positives and the negatives. A huge challenge that can be in the jury system is rushing through important data when finding the verdict.

The jurors had come to value a case based on facts, not prejudice or stereotypes. Those who upheld this value (Juror 8 and the Juror 4) were respected and became leaders that were looked to for guidance. The jurors that maintained arguments based on stereotypes alienated themselves from the others.

Although this juror is puzzled at first he ends up growing confident in his vote and finds many facts to back him up. In one incident he asks juror number two and juror number four who have glasses if they sleep with their glasses on. They giggle and reply with no they do not sleep with their glasses on. Well he uses this because the lady who “witnessed” the murder wore glasses, and in order for her to have clearly been able to see the murder she would have to have her glasses on while she was in bed; since that is when she witnessed the murder. Little by little the other jurors change their vote from guilty to not guilty. And in the end justice is served and the boy is found not guilty.

First, Juror 8 stood his ground. In the beginning the Foreman called for a vote and eleven men raised their hand for guilty while Juror 8 raised his hand for not guilty. “There were eleven votes for guilty. It's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” said Juror 8 for justifying his actions. Later, when the other jurors were trying to convince Juror 8, he was quick with his arguments. To Juror 2 he said, “Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn’t have to open his mouth. That’s in the constitution. You’ve heard of it.” To Juror 10 he said, “You don’t believe the boy. How come you believe the woman? She’s one of “them” too, isn’t she?” When Juror 6 brought up the motive for the murder, Juror 8 remarked with, “…I

The thought of this stories and some of the guys work together to proven to the other person that they are right. The theme of this story is justice, social inequality, and social responsibility. Juror 8 wins because he has proven to everybody even with some help that there was no way that the boy killed his father. The actions of the jurors mainly 3 was one of those who just was mean and did not want anyone to be right.

A boy may die,” and changes his vote to “not guilty” which is another instance where the boy gets a fair trial. The 12th and 7th juror find it difficult to decide on which way to vote and therefore vote “not guilty” so that the boy is not “sent off to die.” The 12th juror’s lack of a defined and consistent point of view reflects America’s post war materialism. The 4th juror believed that the defendant was guilty for most of the play but then was the 2nd last juror to change his vote and admitted that he had a “reasonable doubt.” Although the audience never finds out whether the defendant was “guilty” or “not guilty” the jurors give the “kid from the slums” an honest trial.

The 1957 movie version of 12 Angry Men, brings twelve people together with different personalities and experiences to discuss the fate of a young boy that allegedly killed his father. At the very beginning, many agree that the boy is guilty except for one man. Juror #8 votes not guilty and pushes to have the evidence talked through. After reviewing all the evidence carefully, the tables turned from guilty to not guilty. Each juror brought different experiences and personalities to the jury room. The two that were forceful with their opinions and their reasonings to decide either way we're jurors #8 and #3.

Eventually, the audience and jurors do not know if the boy truly committed the murder or not (only ‘reasonable doubt’ was established, based on the testimonial evidence presented); the boy’s true innocence or guilt had no bearing on the jury’s final agreement; the agreement was derived by systemically questioning and addressing the assumptions and motivations (interests) backing the jurors’ decisions. While all twelve jurors essentially desired justice to be served (according to their personal definitions and interpretations) in the case, which is all parties’ fundamental interest, Juror 8 adopted a different position from the other jurors, due to his compassion and desire to see the teenager get a fairly-deliberated verdict. Juror 3 opted for “guilty”, making the mistake of attempting to solve the wrong problem by having a