Juror 8 12 Angry Men

He had a pretty miserable eighteen years... I just think we owe him a few words. That 's all.” Juror Eight uses the appeal of logos often throughout the film, but one of the most prominent examples occurs when the jurors are discussing the knife that Juror 4 has pointed out is a unique knife that the storekeeper testified it was  “…The only one of it’s kind he had ever had in stock.” Juror Eight responds to Juror Four by saying, “No. I 'm saying it 's possible that the boy lost the knife and that someone else stabbed his father with a similar knife. It 's possible.” Then Juror Eight pulls the same knife from his pocket and stabs it into the table next to the murder weapon. Along with the three appeals, Juror Eight also utilizes logical fallacies to prove a point with other jurors.

Where Juror #3 shouts at the top of his lungs about nothing in particular and just threatens the other jurors, Juror #8 speaks calmly and tries to justify his reasons as much as possible. He doesn’t always find something to prove the evidence wrong, but he shows the other jurors how the witnesses could have been mistaken or how there was a possibility that the boy didn’t commit the crime. For example, Juror #8 says at a point in the film, “Maybe on the surface he looks guilty, but if you look deeper…”. Juror #3, on the other hand, constantly makes comments such as, “It’s these kids. It’s the way they are these

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.

“Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a play about the jury system, and the arduous decisions the jurors must make. The play focuses around twelve jurors discussing whether to find someone guilty of murder. One specific juror, Juror 10, contrasts the benefits and challenges of the jury system. Juror 10 begins by believing the defendant is guilty, but later changes his verdict to not guilty. Throughout the play, Juror 10 demonstrates the benefits and challenges of the jury system.

In 12 Angry Men, Juror #8 tries to convince the other jurors that the defendant of the case, an 18 year old boy accused of stabbing his father to death, is not guilty based on a reasonable doubt. Throughout the film Juror #8 goes over the facts and details of the case to point out the flaws in the evidence in order to prove there is, in fact, a reasonable doubt. The film depicts the struggles of the underdog and going against the majority in order to stand up for what is right. In one scene, the piece of evidence being put into question is a testimony from an elderly man who lived below the boy and his father and claimed he heard the murder happen and saw the boy leave the apartment after it happened. It is being put into question whether the elderly man who walked with a limp could make it to his doorway in order to witness the boy running away from the crime in fifteen seconds.

12 Angry Men is a searing portrayal of how deeply rooted personal prejudices can drive toxic conflicts that obstruct the pursuit of truth and justice. The film dramatises multiple characters whose bigoted assumptions, preconceptions, and narrow mindsets generate hostile divides that must be painstakingly dismantled by reasoning conscientiousness. One of the most significant sources of prejudice-fuelled conflict stems from Juror 3, the bitter and obstinate juror whose vehement insistence on a guilty verdict is gradually revealed to be rooted in resentments with his own estranged son. Personally, I have also encountered situations where parents with domestic complications get dramatic and are unable to get over their personal barriers and enable them to give judicious judgement to other people. Juror 3’s arrogant condescension towards the defendants as “just another delinquent kid” exemplifies how classicist assumptions and an inability to see past his personal complications creates an antagonistic deadlock impeding him from impartial deliberation.

With a very short temper to go along with his all-powerful attitude, juror three is not a nice person. Already he has threatened death towards one of the other jurors and would have made good the threat had it not been for the decisive actions of the other jurors who jumped up to hold him back.. An acrimonious and blind-sighted executioner, juror #3 is one of many that an innocent victim would not want to decide their fate. Unfortunately, democracy does not only apply to the fair and just, and undoubtedly innocent men and women have fallen prey to the unwavering wrath of men

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 twelve jurors are an example of working in a group and the process of unanimous resolution of “not guilty” is an example of problem solving in groups. After 10 jurors vote for “not guilty”, Juror 4 explains and list out the strong evidence makes him think the boy is guilty which is an example of expressing yourself clearly. He reflects on to the previous discussion and asks Juror 8 how to explain the testimony of the woman. Juror 3 is an example of not doing listening for understanding. He insists on the boy is guilty even all the testimonies are proved to have reasonable doubts.

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.

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.

Evidence and reasonable doubt play major roles in this play, the men would each state facts and even some opinions of their own to make just to their side guilty or not guilty. After juror 8 ends up being the only one to vote not guilty, he is asked why he believes the boy is innocent, he answers “I don’t know” and wants to talk it out and examine all the evidence. The whole story goes around from juror to juror as they argue and one by one they each vote not guilty except two jurors do not go so easy number three and ten. One very important thing brought up by juror three in the screen play and not the movie, is the fact that the kid claimed that he had bought the knife as a present of a friend of his because he had busted the other kid’s knife on the pavement, and the fact he had broken the knife just 3 weeks before his dad was murdered, this kind of evidence was very important to the way the

The film uses juror three to demonstrate how past experiences can influence ones prejudice in decision making. Juror 3, who has a prejudice against the accused, and thinks the kid is under-privileged and doesn’t deserve a second chance, which is reason enough for him to conclude the accused is guilty. As the discussion continues as to the verdict of the trial, juror three grows frustrated and angrily refutes, “What is this? Love your under- privileged bother week or something? (12 Angry Men). Due to his past experiences with young men, he is ready to sentence the defendant to death with weak circumstantial evidence, grows angry as the other jurors question what he refers to as “facts” and claims “You can’t refute facts” (12 Angry Men) As all the Jurors except juror twelve get more and more frustrated by the slowed process, juror three begins to see through his prejudice, and disperses the other jurors interruptions by saying “Be quiet, we’ll all get a turn”(12 Angry Men). It finally becomes clear, he sees similarities with his son he had a falling out with several years ago, and puts this prejudice aside and excepts that the evidence is too circumstantial to convict a kid for murder, and sentence him to death.

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.

Third, juror 8 uses his logical appeal in the case to show the other jurors