Juror 8 Essay

Unlike Terry Malloy, who does not find the strength to stand alone until the end, Juror 8 causes conflict from the beginning of the play because he is upfront and stands alone against the others. In the beginning of the play, Juror 8 is the only one to refuse to raise his hands to ‘send a boy to die’ when all the others do, and stands strong when the others dismiss his opinion saying ‘there’s always one, boy oh boy’. Juror 8 doesn’t show remorse, because he shows integrity and compassion and stands for what he believes in. Juror 8 was confident during the conflict, unlike Terry who sought advice and encouragement. Juror 8 is so sure that he is doing the right thing that he admits that he ‘broke the law’ to produce a switch knife that could undermine the prosecution’s case against the Boy.

Juror #8 is a calm and reasonable man which makes it easier for him to judge the case fairly and justly without any prejudice. Juror #8 never said he believed the defendant to be innocent he only wanted to take the role of being a juror seriously and talk about the case before a young boy is sent off to die. “I’m not trying to change your mind it’s just that we’re talking about somebody’s life here… we can’t decide in five minutes.” Because he brings no prejudice in the jury room he is able to look at the facts and carefully decide on his judgement. Juror #8 recognizes other peoples prejudice and tries not to convince them that the boy is innocent but to have them let go of that prejudice and decide based on the facts whether they truly believe the defendant is guilty or not. Rose uses both juror

Similarly ,In Twelve Angry Men Juror 8 is a smart and moral juror who is willing to stand against all the other jurors for what he thinks is right. He is the main protagonist who believes a boy accused with murdering his father deserves a discussion prior to a guilty verdict. Although all the other jurors initially voted guilty, juror 8 believed that the jurors should not “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”(Juror 8, 12). Throughout the play Juror 8 combats the pressure from the other Jurors to just vote guilty and manages to convince his fellow Jurors one by one that there in fact is “reasonable doubt”(Judge, 6) and convinces them to arrive at a “not guilty”(Juror 3, 72) verdict. Reginald Rose extols Juror 8’s pursuit of justice through his success. Not only did Juror 8 stand by his principles and have the courage to stand against all the other Jurors, he also had the wits to convince his fellow jurors to change their verdict. Through these actions Juror 8 brings justice to the courts of New York city saving the life of a young boy.

People's bias and predispositions can affect their opinion of different circumstances and different people. This is very evident throughout the play. After the first group vote and juror 8 votes not guilty, a discussion ensues. It is there that

In conclusion, Rose uses the qualities of Juror 8 to show heroism, and that even when one man can stand up against eleven other men and question their opinions, the outcome of the right decision can still be made. Juror 8 is seen as an admirable man, someone who stands up for what he believes in. He doesn’t

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.

Juror #8 was much more successful with his critical thinking since the beginning of the movie. He was the only one of the jurors that voted not guilty. He expressed that “it’s not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first,” when he is being pressed by the others as to why he did not vote guilty. This is the first step he takes to get the others to talk and think about the case. He uses the idea that “supposing we’re wrong”, when talking about the

This movie as other people say shows a lot of leadership traits. But I can say that the most evident trait that I’ve seen on the movie and the most that I can relate to is the sense that even if juror number eight doesn’t hold the title of being the leader of the group and knowing that he’s surrounded by different people with different perspectives, he have still managed to convince them to go through a common goal and that is to re-examine the case. It’s actually hard but he succeeded with it by displaying a task oriented approach of having the idea of the youth being not guilty. After that, he then started in presenting his thoughts to his co-jurors in a very calm manner even if it seems that they are upset with him. Then he walked little by little with each and every one until he’s able to convince all of them to change their judgment from

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 eight because he believed that the boy was innocent so therefore he didn’t vote guilty because he just wanted to get out of there like the others. My least favorite character was juror three because he was just mad at his son so he was taking it out on the eighteen year old boy and everybody else. Juror eight was the only one who thought the boy was innocent but then he was giving out good points and he later on little by little he changed people’s minds. Everyone was just trying to leave because the room was hot and some had “better things to do”. But Juror eight believed that you can’t just send a innocent boy to jail for life if he was the one who committed his father’s death. He wasn’t completely sure that

in the jury room: Juror 8, Juror 3 and Juror 9. Juror 8 is important because he is smart, brave, and fair. Juror 3 was important because he was the antagonist, he was mean, and he was intolerant. Juror 9 was important because he wasn�t afraid of confronting other jurors. Juror 8 was a very important juror, he was the protagonist. He was the one that proved the truth. Juror 8 was very smart, he bought a knife similar to

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

In the drama Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, juror 8 does a good job in persuading the other jurors to listen and reconsider the evidence. He uses his rhetorical appeals to captivate the other jurors attention. He gains an authority towards the other jurors which makes them trust him more. Juror 8 deconstructs the testimony and evidence with his rhetorical appeal to make the other jurors consider the innocence of the defendant.

Juror 10 gives this story the backbone it needs to stand up. The whole point of this story is the two Jurors(3&10) that believe the boy is guilty no matter what. Without Juror 10, Juror 3 might have been persuaded easier than he was. On another note, Juror 10 was one of the last people to change his vote, and even when he did, he still thought the kid was guilty. This shows a lot. Juror 10 was the only one in the end who still thought the boy was guilty. Juror 10 even says at the end of the book, “Yes, I think he’s guilty. But I couldn’t care less… Do whatever you want to do.”(Rose 71) Based on this quote, Juror 10 is very strong minded, and would not let anyone change his point of view Also, this shows that Juror 10 could not ‘care less’ about the boy. He did not care what happened to him, he

Throughout the film, the filmmaker creates the script and dialogue of juror number eight, Mr. Davis, to show that every life is valuable. Early in the film Davis states that he doesn’t know if the boy is innocent, but he says that doesn’t make him guilty. Juror eight as a character is compassionate and believes that the boy deserves a fair trial. There are many points that say the boy is guilty, but Mr. Davis believe all of it. He questions everyone in the room and asks why they think the boy is guilty. Even though it would be easy to have everyone vote guilty, juror eight wants to discuss everything to make sure the boy is given a fair trial. Mr. Davis stands up for his belief that every life is valuable, which makes other jurors question themselves and come to a realization that perhaps the young man is not guilty. The acting of juror number eight, played by Henry Fonda, is done in a terrific way. He does an