Lack Of Knowledge In Twelve Angry Men

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.

Juror 8 in 12 Angry Men has the job of convincing the other jurors through different means of logic that a boy is innocent. Juror 8 has no reasonable doubt of the boy’s innocence. In his context, which is the court of law, this legitimizes

Once the group completed this juror 8 asked for a secret ballot. He stated he would not participate in the vote, and if all 11 jurors voted guilty he would follow suit. At this exact time the shift of power moved from the foreman to juror 8. Also, at this time the group moved from the storming stage towards the norming stage. As the votes came back all but one vote was guilty. This action set the group towards the next step of performing. The other jurors felt there was more to the guilty verdict than they experienced from the onset of the deliberations. Juror 8 at this moment solidified his leadership position by requesting the foreman to ask for the knife and the floor layout of the apartment. As it happens juror 8 was able to cast doubt amongst all the jurors by obtaining the same knife the boy supposedly killed his father with. Next, juror 8 walked off the distance the eyewitness (Who had a stroke a year before) had to walk in the middle of the night to see the defendant leaving his father's apartment. Then the group asked

So no everyone except juror number three votes for not guilty and this gets so extreme

The film 12 Angry Men opens up the scene of twelve jurors in a court case where a young boy was accused of murdering his father. The jurors move to an empty conference room in order to discuss the boys trial and contemplate the trial. With a show of hands, eleven out of the twelve claim that the boy is guilty without looking deeply analyzing the case. Only one juror, juror 9, who was an architect, had reasonable doubt that the boy could actually be innocent. Throughout the film, juror 9 must convince the other eleven jurors that the boy is actually innocent, starting a debate between the jurors. The purpose of this argument reveals that despite the fact that juror 9 was out numbered, one to eleven, he was able to come up with supportive evidence

In the story "12 angry men" there are twelve jurors, and all but one of those men thought the boy was guilty without even discussing their thoughts amongst themselves. Once the men were in their room to make a decision whether the boy is guilty or not, if the one juror hadn't voted not guilty, the boy would've been sent straight to death row.

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

Funny I didn’t think of it before. I guess you try to forget those things. Anyone who’s ever used a switch knife would never have stabbed downward. You don’t handle a switch knife that was. You us it underhand,” (Rose, 25). This helps convince some of the other jurors to change their vote to not guilty. His contribution of information made the jurors think more about their vote. His character grows from being meek to being an important factor in the result of the case being a fair trial. There is still other prejudice that made one juror still vote guilty.

The O.J. Simpson trial was extremely monumental. This article clearly explained the importance to having an impartial jury. Having an impartial jury would mean treating all rivals equally with fairness. An ignorant jury would result in disputes and unfairness. In this article, Sableman states that “Under the jury system, jurors are required to be impartial, not ignorant.” Finding 12 jurors that knew very little about the Simpson case wasn’t easy. If someone were to be on the jury that knew outside information, they may judge differently. The officials of the Court of Conventional Wisdom discussed the types of people they could choose from to be on the jury. Burr’s lawyers claimed “only jurors with the parties or the incident could fairly decide the case.”

However, the second vote of not guilty is not Juror5 but Juror9. Before we find out who actually gave the not guilty verdict, members are accusing Juror5 and abusing him.

The 1957 film 12 Angry Men directed by Sidney Lumet explores the subject matter of perception in human beings. By using concepts from the Theory of Knowledge, the film can be dissected by various philosophical and psychological angles. A jury of twelve must decide the fate of a young Hispanic boy who has been accused of murdering his father. After the trial, eleven of the twelve jurors are convinced he is guilty only Henry Fonda believes otherwise. The whole film then moves on to explore the individual psychologies of each juror and reason behind why they chose to cast their votes in such a way.

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

Solomon known as a wise man gives us words of wisdom in Pro 9:9 (KJV) “Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning”. Pro 9:10 (KJV) “The

He thought his wealth could give him success and he was wrong. In the end, he realized the only thing in life left to do was to "Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is man’s all. For God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil." Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 (NKJV). Solomon's sins angered God greatly consequently, he had to suffer a punishment.