Initially, the attitudes of the twelve men were displayed towards the Puerto Rican boy in the opening verdict. However, they were reasonable and changed when the jurors’ demonstrated racism, boredom, bias and a careless manner. This became evident when Juror Seven made up his decision stating “the boy is guilty, pal.
Full Answer
It appears that the kid is guilty and 11 of the jurors are quick to rule so. Of the 12 Angry Men jurors, only Juror #8 writes “Not Guilty” on his slip of paper. Character Acclaim: 12 Angry Men Juror 8 . On the American Film Institute’s list of the Top 100 heroes in Movie History, number 28 on the list is “Juror #8” from the 12 Angry Men movie. To give you an idea of the company …
12 Angry Men Jury System. The jury system either the majority or unanimous system is a part of our Justice system. Recently, when present at a trial of young Puerto Rican youth accused of murder, it appeared that the unanimous jury was stronger and favourable. This was concluded as the longer timeframe which the unanimous system in this case allowed the opinion of all jurors’ …
The "foreign juror" is Juror Eleven. Although he is treated poorly at times for being an immigrant, he also acts as the voice of reason, reminding the "Americans" just why democracy is "remarkable."
· In 12 Angry Men, Juror 12 can serve as peacemaker but seems to just not care about the life that they could be setting free or sentencing to death. He goes along with the …
This became evident when Juror Seven made up his decision stating “the boy is guilty, pal. So let’s go home before we get sore throats” (p. 22) without even discussing the reasons behind his decision.
Similarly, Juror Eight raised another statement regarding the time it took the old male witness to reach his door and see the boy, posing a doubt in the jurors’ minds, as “it’s a long walk…. for an old man who had a stroke” (p. 34) which modified the votes of Juror Two and Six. Correspondingly, most jurors immediately started to rethink their votes as the evidence was slowly examined in depth. Allowing the evidence to digest and the vote count to change from “11 to 1- guilty” (p. 7) to reach a verdict of ‘not guilty’.
The jury system either the majority or unanimous system is a part of our Justice system . Recently, when present at a trial of young Puerto Rican youth accused of murder, it appeared that the unanimous jury was stronger and favourable. This was concluded as the longer timeframe which the unanimous system in this case allowed the opinion of all jurors’ in the decision making process which resulted in a reasonable doubt. At the same time, it allowed the jurors’ prejudice to affect their judgement and acquired a fair chance to thoroughly re- examine the evidence.
Initially, the attitudes of the twelve men were displayed towards the Puerto Rican boy in the opening verdict. However, they were reasonable and changed when the jurors’ demonstrated racism, boredom, bias and a careless manner . This became evident when Juror Seven made up his decision stating “the boy is guilty, pal.
Juror 12 just wants to get out of court as quickly as possible. Juror 12 works for a marketing agency. He doesn't really understand people; instead what makes the most sense to him are graphs and figures. All that he really cares about is getting a decision made and getting out of the room.
Lesson Summary. In 12 Angry Men, Juror 12 can serve as peacemaker but seems to just not care about the life that they could be setting free or sentencing to death. He goes along with the flow in order to get done with the deliberations as quickly as possible.
This could be because he doesn't like disagreements or simply because he knows that the longer they argue the longer the process will take.
Sometimes this attitude leads him to act as a peacemaker, trying to stop fights so that they can get back to the business at hand. It also leads him to change his opinion frequently, seemingly to whichever vote seems to get them out of there quickly.
He might think it's interesting, but he does not ever take his role seriously, which involves holding this boy's life in his hands. Juror 12 doesn't play a big role in 12 Angry Men and speaks very little. Yet his wishy-washy nature says a lot about how we might view sentencing others.
Juror 12 doesn't participate in this heated discussion. The most he ever adds to the debate are comments such as ''If you look at the graphs...'' As a marketing agent, graphs and figures are typically how he makes decisions. He doesn't need to think about how people react; instead he makes decisions based on what the figures tell him. This is the same way that he decides to go about making the decision of guilty or not guilty.
Because the Other is different, they are often ignored or mistrusted by the group and might be bullied or discriminated against. Juror 11 is an Other. He is a refugee from Europe who immigrated to the United States. He speaks with an accent, though the country he comes from is not defined.
He believes that he knows more about the justice process than Juror 11, because Juror 11, being from another country, cannot possibly be as informed about America as an American.
Ironically, Juror 11 may well be the most ''American'' of all of the jurors. Juror 11 has a respect for the judicial system that is informed by his experience in his old country. He immigrated to America because he believes very deeply in the integrity of the system, even beyond the jurors born in the United States. When Jurors 3 and 7 demand that the juror who changed his vote during a secret ballot be revealed, Juror 11 stands up for the anonymous juror and for the integrity of the secret ballot: ''Please. I would like to say something here. I have always thought that a man was entitled to have unpopular opinions in this country. This is the reason I came here. I wanted to have the right to disagree.''
The case in Twelve Angry Men matters a great deal to Juror 11. The ideal jury would fairly share and debate their opinions with each other. However, because Juror 11 is clearly different from the rest of the U.S.-born Americans in the group, his views will not be taken as seriously as those of the other jurors.
In the play, Juror 11 acts as a reminder of the greatness of America: the fairness of its legal system, the way in which immigrants make our country stronger, the responsibility of jurors to uphold justice.
As earlier, Juror 7 tries to shut down Juror 11. This time, however, Juror 11 finds his voice. He makes the decision to challenge the other jurors' views of him as the Other, and he asserts his rights as an American to speak out, just as any of the other Americans would:
When Juror 11 tries to share his experience of the justice system of his old country to give a contrasting viewpoint to the other jurors, he is shut down by Juror 7, who asks if he is going to give the history of his whole country.
When the first juror poll is taken, Juror Eight votes "not guilty." When challenged, he just says that he doesn't think the accused is necessarily guilty or not guilty, just that he thinks a man's life is worth a little discussion. If the jury is to condemn this men as a murder, he reasons, they should spend a little time on the decision and honor the fact that what they are doing is serious and significant. Only later does Juror Eight start to raise solid questions about the crime's time frame, the knife, and the witness testimony.
When the first juror poll is taken, Juror Eight votes "not guilty." When challenged, he just says that he doesn't think the accused is necessarily guilty or not guilty, just that he thinks a man's life is worth a little discussion. If the jury is to condemn this men as...
Juror Twelve goes along with the crowd. He comes off as an introvert but is interested in the facts of the case.
Conforms Act I, Page 314: Twelve raises his hand with the majority of the Jury for a guilty verdict. Act I, Page 316, Column 2: Ten says, “Look, what about the woman across the street? If her testimony don’t prove it, then nothing does.” Twelve replies, “That’s right.
Take a second vote, if everyone votes not guilty then he will change his vote and everything will be over
Give specific evidence to support your answer. Yes - reasonable doubt: the old man couldn't hear the threat/old man couldn't have made it to the front door in 15 seconds/the woman's testimony didn't include mention of her eyeglasses/the direction of the wound from a knife/uniqueness of the knife.
No one prove the defendant is not guilty
The protagonist is juror 8 and he was looking out the window.
The cause of 3s anger towards all young men is bc he had a son who ran away from home. He saw his kid be a wimp so he got tough in his kid and tried to make a man out of him.
The cause of the conflict will be that juror 8 convicts more people to prove the boy not guilty and juror 3 will stay with his decision. 8 thinks the boy deserves a fair trial but 3 says the fair trial is the boy dies.
They would have found more information that defended the boy, which would give him a better chance of being not guilty
The old man couldn't have seen the boy run downstairs 15 seconds after the murder because it took Juror 8 about 30 seconds to walk as far as the old man had to. What is the significance when Juror 3 shouts, "I'll kill him!". Juror 3 said if you say something like that then you obviously mean it.
The stab wound on the father was at a downward angle. He said that anyone experienced with switch knives would never stab downward. They would stab under handed
They don't care what he has to say because it's only stereotypes
Basic facts of the case, including testimony, against the 19 year old boy
The legal system says that you are innocent until proven otherwise