Twelve Jurors In The Film 12 Angry Men

Twelve Jurors In The Film 12 Angry Men
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
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

12 Angry Men- Jurors 4 and 8 Essay
Reginald Rose's '12 Angry Men' brings 12 jurors together in a room to decide whether a young
foreign boy is guilty of killing his father. The play is interwoven with dynamic characterisation,
striking symbolism and intense moments of drama. Although Rose positions Juror 8 as the hero, the
strongest character is in fact Juror 4, who is an independent thinker, rational and calm even as
tension begins to build. Although Juror 4 initially votes guilty, he is able to admit his fault and
change his vote.
The ability to remain independent proved to be the most important character trait of Juror 4.
Throughout the play, Rose's character is able to think freely and never lets his personal bias or peer–
pressure affect his decision making. When ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Juror 4 was able to communicate his ideas and thought like a professional and did so in an organised
fashion. He analysed each piece of evidence with care and used logic and his skills of deduction to
guide his vote. Rose intended for the audience to realise that the not guilty vote was the right choice
and used Juror 4 as a catalyst for the final vote change.
Juror 4 is able to remain calm and composed throughout the most stressful of situations. While Juror
10 exhibits racial outbursts; "They get drunk", "That's the way they are!", "VIOLENT!", "These
people are dangerous. They're wild. Listen to me. Listen." Juror 4 sat through this entire scene
without saying a word. It is only until Juror 10's monologue is finished that Juror 4 speaks, calmly
asking Juror 10 to "Shut [his] filthy mouth." Juror 4 never discredits or implies anything towards the
defendant and is always careful of what he says. After Juror 10's tirade, Juror 4 tries to soften the
impact created by 10; "Slums are potential breeding grounds for criminals." He never attacks or
hypes the situation at hand. He draws around 'potential' possibilities. Juror 4 initially had his doubts
at the start of the case but was the only character that overcame his predisposition based on the
analysis of facts and evidence. Rose's character and only this character had the intelligence,
confidence and persistence to keep his head in the tense moment Juror 10 created.
Juror 8 is

Human Justice In 12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men is is about 12 selected people who have to run a juror sentence for a man who has
been convicted about killing his father. It starts off in the courtroom where the 12 members hear the
mans statement. After this is done, they all make their way into the room where they discuss. What
makes this story so interesting, is the fact that all 12 people are complete opposites off each other.
This also ties in the conflict of the story, is that no one can all agree on the same claim. Fights break
out and people get angry at each other. In the story 12 Angry men, it shows people can always
second chance their first opinion. By having a little argument over something or discussing
something, it can influence props decisions. For example, this happened when a certain juror kept
changing his vote constantly, after hearing everyone's claim. 12 Angry Men shows that human
nature and personal experience can influence the effect on justice. To start it off, we have juror
number 2. Juror number 2 is a very hesitant man who doesn't have an opinion on his own. He is very
quiet and doesn't have much to say. During the story he constantly kept changing his mind whenever
the last person spoke. "Well, sure, I've heard of it. I know what it is. I . . . what I meant . . . well,
anyway, I think he was guilty." (Juror 2) This quote is the juror thinking he was guilty in the
beginning but later on he changes his mind. His past experiences have influenced his opinion on the

12 Angry Men : Character Analysis : 12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men come together to decide on a verdict on a young boy that is accused of murdering his
father. This decision is a life changing game, and one of the men voted against the child being guilty.
At the beginning, nobody among the conference type group even discussed the matter, rather just
went straight into a decision, but later one while arguing it can be seen various point of views when
it comes to the decision. Among the essay, the leadership roles and how it was used, the
characteristics, the groups role, and how they addressed with the outcome is established. Analyzing
the film, every aspect among the group is pointed out to provide the conclusion on how they were
able to better their communication skills among each other, and to keep their mind open.
12 Angry Men Analysis
In life people are tasked by different dilemmas and they have to make decisions from time to time.
In this film "12 Angry Men" it can be equated to daily activities involving decision making. In this
film there are 12 men who have been tasked as jurors to make a verdict on a young boy who has
been accused of killing his abusive father. When a vote is taken at first it is realized that of all the 12
jurors, juror number eight votes against all the eleven claiming that he is not sure if the boy is guilty
and that when they have to discuss and come up with a verdict, since the jury is allowed to give one
single verdict that is unanimous. What hinders the whole debate is the

Analysis Of ' 12 Angry Men '
12 Angry Men
Barling definitions (for background):
Idealized Influence – defined by the values, morals, and ethical principles of a leader and is manifest
through behaviours that supress self interest and focus on the good of the collective.
Research has shown that leaders who have higher moral reasoning, who are ethical, or who are self–
sacrificing are perceived as more transformational or charismatic.
Ways in which juror number 11 demonstrated idealized influence:
"A refugee from Europe who had come to this country in 1941. A man who speaks with an accent
and who is ashamed, humble, almost subservient to the people around him, but who will honestly
seek justice because he has suffered through so much injustice."
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1irVXTuMAQESSwtoqOtQiC_–
5dZa59LCmOxA_IQzlxww/edit Juror 11 is a refugee from Europe. He is a watchmaker who speaks
politely and deeply appreciates his democratic rights and freedoms and has no tolerance for those
that don't. He respects process, and wants others to do what is right. For the most part he is
controlled in his emotions and we only really see him get fired up when juror 7 wants to change his
vote simply to hurry the process so that he can make the baseball game for which he has tickets. He
is disgusted that someone would not take their role seriously especially when a boy's life is at stake.
He pushes hard at the juror and demands that he explain why he changed his vote. He speaks with
such conviction that seven

Bias In Twelve Angry Men (Film) Essay
‘It's very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And no matter where you run into
it, prejudice obscures the truth.' [Juror 8, page 53] Perhaps this best sums up the basis of ‘Twelve
Angry Men' by Reginald Rose. This play is about a young delinquent on trial for the murder of his
abusive father. The jury must find him guilty if there is no reasonable doubt, and in turn, sentence
him to death. ‘I don't envy your job. You are faced with a grave responsibility.' [Judge, page 1]
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 ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
You're not gonna tell me you believe that phony story about losing the knife, and that business about
being at the movies. Look, you know how these people lie! It's born in them! I mean what the heck?
I don't even have to tell you. They don't know what the truth is! And lemme tell you, they don't need
any real big reason to kill someone, either! No sir! [Juror 10, page 51] This type of prejudice
offended many of the other jurors, especially Juror 5 who is of similar race to the accused. However,
it isn't just the jurors' own personal prejudice that affects the way they vote. The prosecution of the
boy led the jurors to believe that he was a guilty beyond all doubt. Also, the boy's representation was
uninterested and uncaring. ‘I kept putting myself in the boy's place. I would have asked for another
lawyer, I think. I mean, if I was on trial for my life I'd want my lawyer to tear the prosecution
witnesses to shreds, or at least to try.' [Juror 8, page 14] This case was one of truth and justice. It
becomes evident when the Juror 9 says to Juror 10. ‘Do you think you have a monopoly on truth?'
[Juror 9, page 8] The fact is, nobody really knows what the truth is, and at the end of the play, still
nobody does. The boy may have been guilty, but as Juror 8 pointed out, who were they to make that
assumption? Most of the Jurors had taken for granted that what the prosecution had told them was
the truth. Through much discussion the Jurors realised that this may

12 Angry Men Rhetorical Analysis
One of the most valuable abilities an individual can possess is dauntlessness and the art of
persuasion. In the film 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, twelve members of the jury must
determine and issue a final decree on whether an inner–city teenager is guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt or not guilty of his father's murder. Despite the numerous factual evidence provided, a
majority of the jurors are convinced without reasonable doubt that the young boy is guilty and
should be sentenced to death. These abilities are undoubtedly illustrated when one juror decides to
stand against eleven jurors in transforming the fate of the teenage boy. The individual is Juror 8. He
utilizes the act of courage to stand against the other jurors in what he believes is an unfair judgment
and also uses persuasion to alter their decisions. Through analyzing juror 8's dialogue and his
employment of rhetorical techniques with each juror, the readers can discern his unique traits of
courage and persuasion. First, Let's examine Juror 8's demeanor. He appears to be a gentle, quiet and
an astute man. In the initial jury vote, he is the only juror that votes 'not guilty' while the rest votes
'guilty.' Thus, he exhibits that he is a man that values justice and is willing to fight for it. His display
of dubitatio is recognized when he says, " I don't know whether I believe it or not. Maybe I don't."
(Lumet & Rose, 1957). He is uncertain whether the boy is innocent or guilty but merely seeks the
truth. He further states that it is not easy for him to "send a boy off to die without talking about it
first" (Lumet & Rose, 1957). While justifying to Juror 7 why he cast a 'not guilty' vote, Juror 8
utilizes pathos to sway the jurors. "Look, this boy's been kicked around all his life. You know, living
in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. That's not a very good head start," he says (Lumet &
Rose, 1957). Juror 8 points to the boy's poor upbringing in a bid to persuade the others to reconsider
discussing the case before making a hasty judgment. He also uses his moderate touch and amiable
expressions to calm Juror 9 from the comments made by Juror 10. Consequently, it is apparent that
Juror 8's attitude in determining facts to the

12 Angry Men Core Values
The 1957 movie twelve angry men tell a complete story of what it is like to be on a jury for a
murder case in which they chose whether or not a kid should live. For the start of the movie you
soon realize that the twelve men all have different core values. What is noticed soon turns out to be
true in the coming minutes with the group sitting down and beginning to vote. With one lone person
stating not guilty. That juror was named Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis leads everyone into grunts and groans
as he tries to persuade the other eleven jurors to switch the vote. The most noticeable thing that has
happened through the movie analysis is how well the college, student body reflects the core values
as three of the jurors. The movie shows three specific types of core values connecting to the college
student logical thinking, wisdom, and lastly emotional attachment. The first thing college students
have in common with the movie is the 8th juror in how we are taught to think. Day one of college is
always stressful then through the year you have to learn to switch the way you think and start
thinking logically. In the movie the juror has to provide evidence on how a kid could be innocent
and so he uses very logical thinking to not raise his voice and let biases get in the way of his
thinking. He shows many examples of how loud the train could sound, to how fast a man with a
gimp leg could walk. College students are the same way, as students they are forced to put down
biases to get down to

What Is The Turning Point Of 12 Angry Men
Twelve Angry Men is a very good movie and had a lot of ups and downs throughout the movie. Yes,
I think it took a great deal of courage for Fonda to vote not guilty. First, everyone thought he was
guilty without discussing and just jumping to a conclusion. Fonda actually wanted to give some
thought to it and discuss why the kid deserved a chance and why he might not be guilty. Also, the
mood in the room was very dark when all the jurors got into the room one guy just wanted to go the
baseball game, so he just wanted the kid to be guilty so he could get out of there. Plus the fan
wouldn't work at first so all of them were hot and were ready to get out of there, so I think they just
wanted the kid to be guilty.
If I was given this case to me ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
First, the knife got some to vote not guilty. Fonda presented a knife that was like the one that was
used during the killing because some jurors thought there was only one knife that existed. Second
was the chair seen where he acted like he was in bed and walked the steps off that the old man had
claimed he had heard everything that had happened. This one got some more jurors to vote not
guilty because Fonda said there was no way he could have made it and the time he did it. Third,
were the glasses this as well got a few jurors to going not guilty. Because Fonda claimed that the old
lady could have not been able to see all it happened through a train window. He called out a juror
who wore glasses and it hit home with that guy because he wore glasses so it was kind of

Analysis Of 12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men
Mayumi Shimura
PRNT207B
GCPT Student
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Juror #1 1
Juror #2 1
Juror #3 1
Juror #4 2
Juror #5 2
Juror #6 2
Juror #7 3
Juror #8 3
Juror #9 4
Juror #10 4
Juror #11 4
Juror #12 4
Conclusion 5
Introduction
"12 Angry Men", the movie that is revolved around the trial of the murder case, has different
characters from different backgrounds as the jurors. In this report, the communication styles of those
people are going to be discussed. They are examined based on their behaviours, languages or
gestures.
Juror #1
Among all the Jurors, juror #1 excels at listening skill the most. Seeing his attitude towards
communication, he seems to try to be open to others without biases. This can be seen when he ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
As it is pointed out by juror #8 in the end, his perception regarding father and son is dictated by the
experience in the intense relationship between him and his son and it hinders him to see the
defendant and the victim from the objective perspective. The fact that the victim is the defendant's
father strengthens his perception preventing him from listening to others. It even brings him a fear

as if it meant that he is beaten by his own son. Also, his short temper sometimes causes him to throw
harsh comments at recipients before thinking over and it puts him in the serious position in the
communication which is irreversible. He might think he can correct others' opinions that are
opposed to him by showing his anger as he might do at work as a boss of more than 30 employees.
Nonetheless, those habits of his keep him from the healthy communication and he fails to convince
the other jurors losing his allies.
Juror #4
Juror #4 is very aware of how communication works and how he can be more persuasive as a
sender. He can handle the tones, body language and time in his speech in the most effective way to
convey his message. His well–tailored suits are credited to elevate his credibility too. As well as
making use of his speech skill, He eliminates slangs and slurs that could fail the communication he
is involved and carefully selects the words to say not to offend the audience. It is observed when he
talks about the defendant's terrible background. Building up the

Groupthink In 12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men, an influential and awarding winning film, is a unique movie that tells the story of
twelve jurors who converse on whether the defendant is guilty or not. Despite its old age and
different setting, the movie is a film worth watching as it provides real life scenarios and application
of conflict management when confronted with a problem at hand and conflict from fellow members.
In fact, the movie adequately portrays the occurance of groupthink, types of conflicts seen in small
groups, and ways to resolve conflicts that ultimately influences how the conversation goes. 12
Angry Men does a spectacular job in enrapturing audiences with the plot at hand and showing how
issues can solved in order to reach a common goal. It is apparent from the beginning of the movie
that the defendant, an eighteen year old boy charged for murder, is viewed as guilty. However, there
is one juror among the twelve that views this differently, Juror Eight. In fact, Juror Eight's objection
helps break the issue of groupthink, the illusion of an agreement "in order to minimize conflict,
maximize cohesiveness, and reach a consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating
ideas." (Beebe and Masterson). Juror Eight plays devil's advocate ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Due to the differences in class, background, and personality, conflicts arose. The film accurately
portrays the conflicts that frequently appear in small groups such as simple conflict, pseudo–
conflict, and ego conflict. In addition, it has shown many ways that these conflicts can be managed
and resolved in order to accomplish a common goal. It also shows the importance of avoiding
groupthink; if Juror Eight did not object, an innocent victim could have been sentenced to death. It
was an experience to see twelve random men come together to make a unanimous decision ways
despite the initial conflicts and

Twelve Angry Men : The Character Analysis Of Twelve Angry Men
Twelve Angry Men is a play that has been written down and put into a book format, for the
enjoyment of a wider audience. The play involves a jury in which one juror doesn't agree with the
rest over the verdict of the case that they all witnessed take place in the court. After much argument,
hostility, and anger, all of the jurors change their vote from "guilty" to "not guilty." This all
happened through the strong efforts of juror #8 in which he got to the bottom of the logical facts of
the case, and through the prejudices of his other jurors. This would make the protagonist of the play
juror #8, since he was the only juror who was willing to give the young boy whose life was on the
line, a chance. Although most people may consider the antagonist of the play to be one of the more
hostile, prejudiced juror's, I disagree with this idea. In my opinion, it is the defensive attorney who is
the true antagonist of this play. As for the theme, it seems quite clear that the writer of the play is
trying to show us that one strong person can make others aware of their true prejudices and present
ideas in a new way.
Juror #8 was a very calm and collected man, who had a collection of traits unique from all of the
other juror's. It is because of this that he was able to look at the case through a different lens, in
which he didn't simply accept the facts of the case as facts. He looked beyond what was
Harutyunyan 2 being stated, and questioned the legitimacy of what was being said in its entirety.
There wasn't a single part of the trial that he didn't bring up to the other men, and you could tell that
he had thought deeply about every argument that he presented. He held no prejudice against the boy
or any of the witnesses that had stepped forth, which is ultimately what led him to instil a reasonable
doubt in the others. One great example of this is when he presented the ideas about the El train being
too loud for the boys shout to have been heard, or that the old man would've taken longer than he
said he did to get from one side of the room to the other. He made the other juror's consider his
arguments through his logical claims and persistence. Even though the other men didn't want to
listen to him at first, they

Juror No. 8 In Twelve Angry Men
In the story Twelve Angry Men, there is a group of jurors that try to solve a case about an African
American teen who murdered his dad with a knife. There are twelve jurors in this story, but this
essay will only be about two of them, No. 8 and No. 10. Juror No. 8 is a highly skilled man who
looks only at the facts. Where as Juror No.10 is a man that doesn't look at the facts, but also bases
his opinions off of past events. The first Juror, No. 8 is one of the most significant characters that
throughout the entire story he stays firm with his decision. Right off the bat, in the story the narrator
gives you a brief description of No. 8. " A quiet, thoughtful, gentle man. A man who sees all sides of
every question and constantly seeks the truth.

Juror Eight In Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose
Picture a room with a large table in the center. There is a door, but it is locked. Filling up all the
twelve seats around the table, there are twelve men: jurors debating the murder of a man living near
the el tracks. The man's son is his alleged killer, but one juror is not convinced. This image is from
Twelve Angry Men, a play written by Reginald Rose. The Eighth Juror is being fair to the child,
explaining how there are many "what–if's" in the situation. Juror Eight brings up many different
pieces of evidence and logic to try to understand both sides of the case. He also wants the other
jurors to see each side because he wants a fair trial. So, Juror Eight plays a very important part in
this play. Juror Eight began the story by ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Instead of getting angry at the Sixth Juror immediately and saying hurtful things back, he continued
with his argument politely. In summary, Juror Eight reveals many traits and characteristics of
himself and these characteristics and his actions impact the story greatly. When the Eighth Juror
tried to open the discussion and give the boy a fair trial, he created the whole story. The entire play
would not have even occurred if not for the Eighth Juror. At the start, all of the jurors wanted to go
home. Several even talk about how they want to "get this over with" (Rose 7). So, all jurors were
willing to vote as quickly as possible even if it meant that the defendant may not get the fairest
hearing. But, the eighth was not willing to allow this because he wanted a fair trial. So, without the
Eighth Juror, would there even be a story to tell? Most would think not. Juror Eight says many
things that make the rest of the jury think a lot about. For instance, he states, "It's not easy to identify
a voice" (Rose 32). By bringing up this valid reasoning, he added to the story and gave the boy a fair
chance by questioning whether the story of everybody involved in the case is definitely true.
Furthermore, if the Eighth Juror had not promoted the discussion of this boy's case, everyone would
have voted guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But, there was reasonable doubt from Juror Eight, as

Review of '12 Angry Men'
In Twelve Angry Men, the prosecution and the defense have rested and the jury is filing into the jury
room to decide if a young Spanish–American boy is innocent or guilty of murdering his father. What
starts out as an open and shut case of murder becomes instead a mini–drama of each of the jurors'
lives, preconceptions and prejudices and preconceptions about the trial, the accused and ultimately,
each other. Based on the stage play, all of the film's action takes place in the jury room. On the
surface, the case appears to be open–and–shut due to several facts: 1) The defendant possess only a
weak alibi 2) a knife the boy claimed to have lost is then found at the murder scene by the police 3)
several witnesses claimed to have been heard screaming, observed the killing or the boy running
from the scene. In the beginning, 11 of the jurors immediately vote guilty with only Juror No. 8
casting a not guilty vote. At first the juror (Mr. Davis) bases the vote more for the sake of discussion.
The jurors in the room must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the boy defendant is guilty of
murdering his father. As the jury's deliberations unfold, the story quickly becomes an intimate study
of the jurors' very complex personalities. These personalities range from the wise, bright and
empathetic to the arrogant or prejudiced and even merciless. This provides the immediate backdrop
to Mr. Davis' attempts to convince the other jurors that a "not guilty" verdict might be appropriate

Movie Review : My Biggest Pet Peeves
One of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to movies is how the ending occurs. Whether it is a
happily every after, or a dark turn of events, as long as the flick doesn't end abrupt I will most likely
enjoy it. 12 Angry Men went the other direction. Resulting in a cliffhanger to end without telling the
audience whether or not the boy actually did the crime. Compelling, yet thrilling as the director left
a big question mark at the end of this film. The jurors in this film each had their own personality and
creative background in their lives creating a mess in the juror room. Two distinct jurors popped out
to me while watching this film. These two jurors who were more different than each other could
ever be reminded me of certain characteristics that I could relate to. Juror number one who was the
high school coach with a vary laid back attitude towards the actions of the room was the first juror
who I could relate to. Almost immediately you could tell that he had selective listening engaged
during the first 45 minutes into the film. Willing to agree with the majority on the verdict of guilty,
juror number one wasn't going to stand out and vote not–guilty and start the feud, that will come
later by juror number 8. After hearing what juror number 8 had to say about his strange vote towards
not–guilty, juror number one was only paying attention to the vast majority of guilty voters who
stated the obvious facts against the accused. He wasn't about to listen to some lone random

Conformity In 12 Angry Men
Can a minority influence the beliefs within a group setting? The 1957 movie, 12 Angry Men is a
great example of the minority influence process, the one change the beliefs of the other eleven. 12
Angry Men is a jury group that decides if the defendant is guilty or not guilty of murder and sending
the defendant to the Electric Chair. During deliberation, prejudice, persuasion, conformity and
cognitive heuristics, all played a role in the interaction of the group and the final decision to equate
the defendant.
Persuasion
Henry Fonda, plays the role of juror number eight, who from the beginning keeps his conviction that
the defendant is not guilty due to reasonable doubt. Fonda uses arguments and reasoning to convince
the other jurors to deliver a not–guilty verdict. For each witness testimony, Fonda was able to raise
doubt, like the L–train causing enough noise that the elderly neighbor would be unable to hear the
father and son argue. As more jurors, changed their verdict to not–guilty, they took on the role as
persuader, for example, juror number nine placed doubt on the female neighbor to be able to see the
murder because of it was doubtful she was wearing her glasses. One by one, Fonda was able to
convince the others to admit there was reasonable doubt.
Conformity
Conformity or socially acceptable behavior (Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2014), was also evident in the
movie. Juror number seven continuously chose the majority's verdict, not going against the larger
group, when more

Twelve Angry Men Juror 8 Analysis
Justice or Freedom 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. First, Juror 8 establishes his credibility to
support his arguments. He becomes the authority to the other jurors. " I want to call for a vote. I
want eleven men to vote by secret ballot. I'll abstain. If there are still eleven votes for guilty, I won't
stand alone" ( page. 11 ). This is the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Now No.8 tells No.9 he can say what he wants to say about the old man for the reason he lied. No.9
say, " This is a quiet, frightened, insignificant man who has been nothing all his life, who has never
had recognition – his name in the newspapers. Nobody knows him after seventy–five years. That's a
very sad thing. A man like this needs to be recognized. To be questioned, and listened to, and quoted
just once. This is very important" ( page.16 ). Juror 8 tells juror 9 it is okay to say your own opinion.
All the other jurors feel comfortable saying their own opinions because juror 8 voiced his own.
"Look this boy's been kicked around all his life. You know, living in a slum, his mother dead since
he was nine years old. That's not a very good head start. He's a tough, angry kid. You know why
slum kids get that way? Because we knock'em on the head once a day everyday. I think maybe we
owe him a few words. That's all." ( page. 5 ). No.8 is trying to make people feel bad for the boy.
He's trying to say that they shouldn't convict him because he hasn't had the best life so he needs to
have the opportunity to live the rest of his life doing something that makes him happy. Juror 8 is so
powerful he can make all the other jurors say their own opinions. Because of his pathos and his
strong ethos the other jurors will listen to his logical appeal about the case. Third, juror 8 uses his
logical appeal in the case to show the other jurors

Essay about Twelve Angry Men Juror 3
12 Angry Men Essay Juror#3 In a crowded jury room in downtown New York, opinions collide as
discussion about the innocence of a young boy is decided. The dark and foreboding storm clouds
that hang over the heads of the jurors are beginning to lift as time progresses and new facts are
presented. One juror is not happy about this stay of execution and is holding fast his opinion of
guilty. Juror three, the president of his business, refuses to alter his vote or opinion in any way. Still
haunted by his own son, juror three verbally assaults the group with a forceful tone and a taciturn
attitude. One of twelve, Reginald Rose created them all from the same pen and ink, and they could
all be no more different. Juror three is angry, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Seeing his chance, he is firmly set on this boys guilt, seeing his own son's guilt in the accused. But it
does not stop there. Throughout the play, juror three interrupts others in mid–sentence and attacks
their opinions hoping to quash them quickly before they pollute his own flawless opinion and doubt
has a chance to creep into the dark crevices of his mind. For instance, when juror eight surprises the
group with a second knife, juror three is already angry, too angry. His voice rises and shakes with an
animal–like ferocity. "You pulled a real bright trick here. Now supposing you tell us what you
proved here. Maybe there are ten knives like that one. So what?" Not thinking that this put a dent in
his case, juror eights brains have overcome the emotions of juror three. 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

Juror 8 Essay
Inside a room where life or death decisions are made, twelve men sit with wandering thoughts. The
made up minds of some jurors are to send a boy to his death without a second thought, but one other
juror may change that. Inside of the play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose, Juror 8 has
the persuasive evidence to change the minds of his fellow Jurors and save a boy from his execution.
The other Juror's seem like they won't budge with their mind set on the decision of guilty, but after
Juror 8 proves his thoughts on the decision of innocent, he may just be able to save a young life.
Juror 8 had many chances to change his opinion about the boy's case, and yet he never did.
Throughout this whole play, Juror 8 stood his ground and was ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Finally, Juror 8 had a huge impact on this story. Juror 8 was very insightful with his opinions and
evidence. He gave himself the ability to change the minds of eleven men and save the innocent life
of one. Juror 8 was the only man out of 12 who decided to look deeply into the murder case and find
little pieces of evidence that everyone else seemed to miss and used that to prove his points. For
example, no one would have thought about how the woman who claimed she saw the murder from
across the street may have not had perfect vision. Juror 8 found little details to prove that, like how
she had marks from her glasses and may not have been wearing them when she looked outside. Not
even the lawyers had thought about that and most little things like that were why the young boy was
almost sent to his death. Juror 8 was a true hero and stood up to his own opinion and points even
when others didn't agree with him. Overall, Juror 8 is one of the most impactful characters in this
theatre production. Without him there would be no conflict in the court case. Juror 8 was able to go
from being unsure about his vote to completely confident along with the changing the minds of
every single Juror in that room and save a boy from his execution. Juror 8 has a huge role in this
storyline and has a very persuasive and open minded personality. Juror 8's decisions in

What Is The Topic Of The Play 12 Angry Men
Twelve Angry Men is a play filmed in New York City in 1957. It took place in a court law of jury
room where they were deliberating a murder trial. They were accusing a young boy of murdering his
father with a knife. They were several witnesses that claim that they heard and saw the murder and
the boy yelling "I am going to kill you". However, the knife that the young boy claimed that he lost
was found in the murder. Twelve men were sent to be jurors to deliberate the trial. If the young boy
was found to be guilty than the sentence for the accused is the death penalty. The men decided to
take a break before making their decision and voting. After the break was over the men gathered
together and eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty and

Juror 4
As is known to all, people always have different views on one issue because of the different
understanding of objective things and personal experience. And that maybe why there is a great
number of conflicts in this world. People always have a stereotype view of the people who has a
different view with them, and things are even worse when someone is the only one person that has a
different view. A good argument does not mean being the only one who is right, but by providing a
valid explanation. Providing a valid argument is necessary and providing a logical and reasonable
proof to support argument is more persuasive. However, the personalities also play an important role
in the process of the argument because they affect the ways of thinking ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Juror 4 is an educated and logical man because all of his arguments are based on the facts and
evidence. He also notices some details that other jurors ignored at the beginning. He illustrates that
the murder weapon, which is an unusual carved handle and blade knife is a strong evidence that
proves the boy is the suspect because the knife is so unique and the shop owner also confirms that
the knife the boy has is the only one in stock. And it is not possible that the knife just fell out from
the boy's pocket and someone picked it up and stabbing the victim or someone else use the exactly
same knife to kill boy's father because it is a not possible coincidence. Other jurors don't accept an
incredible coincidence like this as well. After listening to Juror 4's argument, however, Davis
presents his own argument, which is the coincidence is possible. But Juror 3 stands out and rejects
Davis's argument that he doesn't think it is possible. At this point, Davis shows other jurors a very
similar knife just like the boy's. Davis points out his evidence to confirm his argument is correct,
which is it is possible that someone stabbed a very similar knife and killed the father, because Davis
bought this knife in a shop that is two blocks from the boy's house. That shows if Davis does,
anyone else could buy an exactly same knife. After Davis explains his argument, even though
majority of the jurors still are not convinced by his argument, Juror 2 begins to question the murder
weapon because he thinks this is an interesting point to consider about and Juror 11 says the knife
was important to the district attorney, which shows that Davis's argument attracted some

The Healthsouth Corporation Inc.
INTRODUCTION The HealthSouth Corporation was started in 1984 by Richard Scrushy with
hopes of becoming one of the largest healthcare companies in the country. It was doing quite well by
1996 with a market value of nearly $12 billion and was one of the United States largest healthcare
firms. This all fell apart in 2003 when it was discovered that Scrushy and his employees had
committed fraud in the estimated range of almost $2.7 billion (Daigle, Louwers and Morris 887).
Scrushy, over the years, had brought on many new faces to the company. Many of these employees
were friends of Scrushy from previous business ventures and business meetings. These employees
and the others involved in the fraud were given the name 'family'; highly due to the fact that they all
knew what was happening and not one wanted to go to the authorities to confess. It was after the
fraud had gone on for nearly six years that the former CFO Weston Smith tipped off federal
investigators.
Following the actions by Smith, the four other CFO's who ran the company during the fraud came
forward which included: Aaron Beam Jr., Michael Martin, Malcom McVay, and then current CFO
William Owens. Along with the CFO's their staff members who were also in on the fraud also came
forward bringing the total number of involved to fifteen. Also the Birmingham Alabama office of
Ernst & Young came under heavy scrutiny for auditing HealthSouth during the fraud and failing to
take action on any evidence they found.

Jurors Influence On 12 Angry Men
When watching the move 12 Angry Men, we see different views from the jurors such as social
influence, majority influence, specific motivation and egoism. This shows different attitudes and
opinions the jurors have. One man out of twelve jurors decides to take on a room of eleven stubborn
jurors as given the verdict of not guilty. The eleven jurors elected for the kid to be guilty and refused
to think otherwise until the one non guilty juror decided to step up and discuss the situation. The
majority of the jurors seem very impatient and anxious to get out of the courtroom. They believe the
one juror who is patient and wanting to discuss the situation is just wasting their time. The jurors
shows many characteristics throughout the movie ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Just when you think everyone is going to agree unanimously there will always be a Juror number 8
who has a different aspect on the topic at hand. Juror number eight played a huge role in this film,
without his strong judgement and logical answers there would have never been a discussion and
might have executed an innocent kid. This film shows the importance of innocent until proven
guilty. This films shows how one person can make a difference. This also shows how people can
rely on eye witness testimonies and tend to speak aloud before they thought process the situation in
front of them. Throughout the movie there were many psychological phenomenon's that I could
relate to but the few that I have discussed were thought of as most

Juror Twelve Arguments
Although juror twelve was not one of the main characters in the arguments he was the peacekeeper
during these times. He would use his cheesy advertising sayings to stop the arguments. A saying he
used was "Put it on a bus and see if it gets off at Wall Street.". If his sayings didn't stop the
arguments he would use a different strategy and say something like why don't we vote on it. The
example I found of him redirecting the argument he brought the conversation back to the facts. This
is when juror nine and other jurors were arguing "Let's not forget the women across the street. She
looked out the open window and saw the boy stab his father. She saw it!". This I found to be one of
the greater examples of juror twelve being the peacekeeper

Juror 8 Character Traits
Juror Eight would make a phenomenal detective. While deciding the verdict, he reveals that he was
very attentive in the trial when he is brave enough to stand up to the others and tell them very
precisely what what said in the trial and how it doesn't match up. In the play "12 Angry Men" by
Reginald Rose, Juror Eight shows many traits, among these traits are attentive, brave, and precise.
He displays these characteristics many times throughout the play.
The first character trait Juror Eight shows is attentive. Juror Eight pays very close attention during
the trial. You can tell because he realizes the old man's testimony is questionable. In the play, he says
he heard the kid yell to his father, "I'm gonna kill you" and then a moment later heard a body fall,
but his window was open and the el train was roaring by so he couldn't have heard that. Juror Eight
says, "Did anyone here ever live right next to the el tracks? I have. When your window is open and
the train goes by, the noise is almost unbearable. You can't hear ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Juror Eight stands alone against the others because of what he believes. One way he shows this is by
voting not guilty when everyone else voted guilty. When the foreman is casting the first vote, some
hands shoot up for not guilty right away, while others look around the room and slowly begin to
raise their hands. Juror Eight stands up to Juror Three even though Juror Three has been hostile
towards him the whole time. Juror Three begins ranting and raving about how they are letting him
slip through their fingers. Juror Eight asks him, "Our fingers. Are you his executioner?" Juror Three
then tries to attack him and yells, "I'll kill him. I'll kill him!" He also stands up for Juror Nine. Juror
Three begins to yell at Juror Nine. Juror Eight tells Juror Nine, "Why might the old man have lied?
You have a right to be heard." He is brave because he isn't letting people push him around and he's
standing up for himself and his

Fallacious Argument About Juror 12
Name: Dharmendra Kumar
Roll No.–13110033
Words– 1014 FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT OF 12 ANGRY MEN
The arguments without logical reasoning or invalid reasoning are called fallacious argument. In this
movie there are many situations where people have used fallacious argument, which is listed below.
#Juror 8.He is nineteen years old.
Initially EIGHT argue that kid is only 19 years old, how could he kill his father. But this age is
enough for thinking what to do or not. We have not any reasonable logic behind that kid can't
murder.
#Juror 8.There were eleven votes for guilty.
If most of the people are supporting one thing then oppose them and telling that since most of the
guy is supporting so i have opposed. This is poor reasoning. Initially ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
May be he has not critically analyzed this case or not get information of all evidence.
#Juror 7.The boy looks not guilty.
This is situation when after a long discussion people do not get clear result. SEVEN wants to go his
home and without having a valid reason decide that boy is not guilty. Here is the issue of a life.
Concluding for personal work is very shameful.
#Juror 8.You do not believe the boy's story, how can you believe the woman's.
I think it is not necessary that if one story seems wrong then another will also be. If someone don't
believe on one story then it is not necessary for them to not believe on another. We can't force
another to view everything in similar way.
#Juror 3.Nobody proved otherwise
If someone blame on me that i have killed someone and i have no evidence, it means not i really
killed someone. During initial inspection of the case there was no evidence in favor of kid. Due to
that we should not assume that kid had killed his father. There may be also possibility that all the
evidences are false.
Conclusion of this dramatic

Truth vs. Perception
The concept of 'truth' versus 'perception' can be observed in nearly all aspects of life. What is the
truth these days; in newspaper articles, current affair shows or stories that a friend is telling you, is it
truth or is it a version of the truth? The complexities inherent in this concept of 'truth' versus
'perception' will be discussed in relation to two texts; "Twelve Angry Men" by Reginald Rose, and,
"After the First Death" by Robert Cormier.
What is the key difference between 'truth' and 'perception', and which is more important? The truth
is the reality of the fact while perception is the truth relative to oneself. The mind, the nature of the
metaphysical of a human being is different to everyone else's. Everyone has lived ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
This is very convincing evidence, that it was the only blade of its particular craftsmanship, it was
identified as property of the boy by his friends and it was also the same blade used to kill his father.
This is the facts presented by the prosecution, the 'truth'. This truth is wavered when the 8th juror
brings out a blade exactly the same as the one as the one the boy had. It is interesting as the
shopkeeper stated that it was rare and unusual yet, the 8th juror brought the same one from a pawn
shop near the boy's house. This contradiction therefore questions the credibility of the shopkeeper's
accounts and brings a shadow of a doubt to this case. The boy's friends did indeed identify it as the
death weapon but with the possibility of this switchblade being an abundant produce, it also presents
the possibility that another person stabbed and killed his father with the same kind of knife.
The next piece of evidence that is debated is the testimony of one of the key witnesses of the
prosecution. The old man living downstairs heard the boy yell, "I'll kill you!" followed by a thump
on the floor. He then witnessed a young man, supposedly the defendant, running away. The old man
said that after the thump, he ran straight to the door in fifteen seconds and saw the boy running as he
opened the door. During the proceedings of the trial, the old man was dragging his foot slowly
across the floor having recently suffered a stroke. The jurors observed

How Race And Stereotype Can Affect Justice Being Served
. This play takes place in 1963, the year in which the Civil Rights movement was being fought for.
The main topic of this play is to understand how race and stereotype can affect justice being served,
and the only way around this would be to view facts and override race and stereotype with evidence.
The play beings in New York City in a jury room, there are 12 jurors and each of them seem very
flustered, not only because its hot and the fan won't work, but because the trial seems to almost be a
waste of time for these twelve people. We learn the case they are dealing with is between a son and
his father; the son supposedly stabbed and killed his father. The father and the son live near the
slums which is where colored people live. Almost ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
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. Juror
number eight played by Cameron Needham is key to this story because he is the one who is the only
one with a vote not guilty at first, and without him the boy would be found guilty. Juror number
eight is very hesitant at first when raising his hand to vote not guilty he raises it fairly slow as if
scared of what the others might think. As the play continues he is constantly on his feet and has his
hands in his pockets most of the time. This gesture of his hands in his pockets seems as if he is
trying to protect himself from the other jurors. Also, juror number eight being on his feet seems to
show that he is nervous because he is never in the same place for a long period of time. When the
other jurors ask him questions or state facts, he looks into their

12 Angry Men Essay
Main issues related to negotiation and conflict resolution The movie "12 Angry Men" covers
different negotiation and conflict resolutions. The communication is set in a jury room where people
with different worldview are bargaining over the judgment of a murder case. Juror 8 is willing to
stand alone with his vote "not guilty". Trying to avoid the winner's course, he demanded a
conversation about the case despite the clear 11–1 vote on the guilt of the defendant. Juror 8
discredits his opponents' arguments and uncovers their constraint thinking, he uncovering doubtful
evidence, alienating hardliners and engaging in conversations. In the conversation it becomes
obvious that not every juror bases his decision on the same facts, and ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
When he is asks to defend his position he passes, this indicates that he is lacking the braveness to
speak up. Henry is aware of this fact that the best strategy to win Juror 5 over is therefore having
another juror speak up. After changing to the "not guilt" side he proves himself as a valuable ally, by
bringing insides to the use of the murder weapon. Juror 8 knows that bargaining power can shift
through focusing on common understanding and emotional connection. Power in a negotiation can
be derived through knowledge of participants. Initially Henry is quiet and not engaging in the
conversation, however, he observes the others' behavior. He never reveals anything about himself,
his background, his motives, and his name stay in the dark until the end of the movie. Henry states
that having reasonable doubts made him vote "not guilty", and the idea of sentencing somebody to
death can not be a matter of view minutes. He knows that only with an ally he can continue a
discussion. Knowing that the he can not hold up his position alone for a longer time, he decides to
gamble for the support. He hopes that he might have appealed to at least one of the jurors that were
not really convinced of the guilt of the defendant from the beginning. Recognizing the importance of
the life of the accused Juror 9, an older man changes his vote. He engages in Henry's attempt to
change the opinion of the others. He in the end provides the final facts that change

Juror Ten's Twelve Angry Man
Everything have conclusion, before people make their conclusion they have to be thoughtful, but
there are some things alway disturb our thinking, that we may take wrong conclusion as the
consequence. In the story of "Twelve Angry Man", shows people could use their bias like social
status, personal experience about family issue, or they can be thoughtless, when they make unfair
conclusion for others. Those people had same issue, they jumping to conclusion, which is never the
best way to find anything out. The conversation between Juror Four and Juror Ten show that they
assume the kid was a negative personality and give "guilty" as the result for the boy. Juror Four
points out that "Children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society" (Rose 48), Juror
Ten strongly agrees with Juror Four's idea he supports that "The kids who crawl outa those places
are real trash"(48). From my personal opinion, both Juror Four and Juror Ten jumping to conclusion,
because of the boy was born from the slum, which accept the consequence, they took colored eyes
to looked at the group of people from slum, that the people from those place must be the ones do the
bad things. Which was unfair for the boy, because they ignored the process of the event and
testimonies. "Look let's talk fact. These people are born to lie."(139) and "They are different. They
think different. They act different. Well for instance, they don't need any big excuse to kill someone"
(139). In the later story,

Jurors In 12 Angry Men
The movie "12 Angry Men" was about twelve male jurors, brought together in a deliberation room
to decide whether a boy is guilty of killing his father. The deliberation began with an 11–1 vote for
guilty. As the movie progressed, the one man who had a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the
young boy, convinced the other members of the jury to question the facts ultimately leading to a
unanimous vote for innocence. There were two obvious leaders in this movie, Juror number 1, the
foreman and Juror number 8, the man who stood alone with a not–guilty verdict. This paper will
discuss these two jurors and how they led the group to reach its goal.
About the Jurors
Juror number 1 was the jury's foreman and responsible for keeping the group under control and on
task. As soon as the group entered the room he positioned himself by saying "All right, gentleman,
let's take our seats" (Fonda & Lumet, 1957). When they did not follow orders he added a bit more
authority to his tone and ordered everyone to sit down. Later, as things started to become unruly, he
stepped in and asserted himself a bit more with the statement, "All right, let's stop the arguing, who's
got something constructive to say?" (Fonda & Lumet, 1957).
Juror number 1 was effective at keeping the group on task and keeping the process moving.
The other, Juror number eight was the one ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Juror #1 was a transactional leader. He was assigned to do a specific job and he was able to maintain
control of the team. Manning and Curtis identify eight characteristics that make a team successful,
one of them is a clear, elevating goal, some others are a collaborative climate, competent team
members, standards of excellence and unified commitment (2012). Juror number 1 was able to keep
the focus on the clear elevating goal of determining the boy's guilt or innocence, which ultimately
led the group to a

Critical Thinking In 12 Angry Men
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. According to the book From Critical Thinking to Argument by Sylvan Barnet
and Hugo Bedau, the term critical thinking means checking ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Juror #3 loses his temper and eventually breaks down and says not guilty. 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 #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

Compare And Contrast Juir 3 And Juror 8
This play by Reginald Rose was very dramatic. In this courtroom, there was a case about a young
man that is guilty or innocent of murdering his father. This case consisted of a group of twelve
jurors. These twelve jurors had so much about themselves that was alike and in some ways they
were all different.
In this case, the juror 3 and juror 8 are very different. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant person
also he is known as a bully. On the other hand juror, 8 is an open minded individual that always
listens to someone before speaking his part in something. Juror 3 also believes whatever I say I'm
always right and nobody could correct me or tell me something that proves him wrong. For
example,"What's the *matter* with you guys? You all

Having A System In Twelve Angry, By Reginald Rose
What is the point of having a system if it has faults to it? A family friend was being held at the adult
detention center. His family was not able to hire a lawyer for him at the time, so a lawyer was
appointed to him. The problem with his appointed lawyer was that he didn't speak Spanish and the
family friend didn't speak English, therefore there was no way of communication. The lawyer did
not find out anything about his case, he didn't find out whether or not he had a work permit or a visa,
which he did but had been expired. The attorney appointed to him just said, "Sign the papers and
you'll be released here." The family friend just did what the lawyer said because he thought he was
helping him, not creating a bigger problem. Now, he is fighting to stay here where he has built a life
with his wife and kids. Again, what is the point of having a system if it has faults to it? Problems in
the system have been present since about the 1930s or 1940s and are still present to this day, it may
not have as many faults however some are still present. The play, "Twelve Angry Men," written by
Reginald Rose, is about a kid on trial who is accused of murdering his father. Testimonies given by
neighbors are raising questions among the jurors. A lady from across the railroad tracks claims she
saw the kid murder her father, she, however uses glasses and wouldn't be able to see anything
without them. A man from the apartment complex claimed to have seen the kid running down the
stairs yet

Thesis On 12 Angry Men
Twelve Angry Men
In the 1957 MGM film, Twelve Angry Men, a young boy from the slum is on trial for allegedly
stabbing his father to death. The jury from New York City is forced to have 12 men agree as to
whether the boy is guilty or not guilty. If they decide not guilty, the boy is set free; if he is found
guilty, the boy will receive the death sentence. In the beginning all but one agreed the boy was
guilty; Juror 8, Mr. Davis, argues that the boy deserves some deliberation. Mr. Davis changed the
other eleven jurors' minds by using his core values such as keeping an open–mind, staying humble,
and believing every life is valuable. By keeping an open–mind, Mr. Davis was able to look into the
details of the facts presented and create an argument as to why the boy could perpetually be not
guilty. Henri Bergson, a French philosopher, said "The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to
comprehend." Everyone but Mr. Davis came into the room closed minded and was unable to see a
different perspective. They were unable to understand, sympathize and make sense of the argument
Mr. Davis was making. Mr. Davis was able to persuade one man to have an open–mind; juror
number five. The two men then began to look further into the details of the evidence. This is when
they discovered the eye glass indents in the nose bridge of the woman witness. They discussed the
possibility of the woman having the ability to actually see through a moving train, across the street,
and in the dark. This

12 Angry Men Juliar Quotes
The first juror that will be discussed is juror 7. Juror 7's personality is impatient which is highlighted
in the story when he is in a hurry about the case, "Right. This better be fast. I've got ticket to the
Seven Year Itch tonight" (313–314 Act 1). The quote shows that Juror 7's priority is not the case, but
a baseball game representing his personality of impatient. The readers also see that seven does not
care about the case. For instance, in the story when he tells all the jurors he wants to go, "Who
knows maybe we can all go home" (314 Act 1) This shows that seven is impatient and would rather
let a kid die for him to go home. In fact the readers also see seven breaking honor and justice when
he argues with others who voted not guilty, "So what'd you vote not guilty for?" (314 Act 1) This
shows how he break his honor because he wants everyone to agree, but one juror does not in which
he then proceeds to bully him. Another juror that will be discussed is juror 8. Eight's personality
would be generous because he would defend a kid. This is shown when he defends the kid and
voting not guilty, "He's nineteen years old" (314 Act 1). This shows in eight's tone he is generous
and would not let a kid die ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Juror 10's personality is cold in which the readers see this when he describes the case, "A kid kills
his father. Bing! Just like that. Well, it's the element" (314 Act 1). In the quote we see that his
personality is bitter because when he says "element" it is as if he was mentioning a group. The
readers then sees that ten despises the other jurors' beliefs, "You're not going to tell us that we're
supposed to believe him..." (315 Act 1). This shows he does not care about the other's opinion
making him selfish. Furthermore, ten also contradicts the other jurors' beliefs, "Did anyone force
him to kill his father? How do you like him?" (320 Act 1) This shows how ten cares about himself
making him

Juror 7 12 Angry Men
The movie 12 Angry Men is about a group of jurors that are trying to decide if a boy is guilty of
killing his father. Throughout the movie most of the jurors believe that the boy is guilty and they
believe he is guilty because these jurors are discriminating against the boy. They judge the boy
based on where he is from and his background rather than further discussing the evidence. However
one juror, juror eight, kept an open mind which promoted reason and he tries to show this reason to
the other jurors. He knows what it is like to be a boy at that age. His goal is to get the other jurors to
look more closely at the evidence and understand that a person's life is at risk. He is not judging the
boy based on his background or where he ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
All of the jurors are calm sitting around the table thinking it was an obvious decision, until juror
eight votes non–guilty. The other jurors believe that the evidence given by the witnesses should be
enough to prove that the boy is guilty. They also refer to the boy's background. Juror seven makes a
statement that you could tell that the boy was a dangerous killer and the boy's record. He mentions
these things to try and convince the other jurors that they boy was guilty and there was no need to
further discuss the evidence. The jurors think the boy is dangerous because of where he was raised.
The boy was raised in a bad part of town where the jurors believed violence was a way of life for
"people like him". These jurors did not have an open mind about the boy. They do not want to look
further into the evidence because they do not see the point in doing that. Some jurors begin to walk
around and this shows their aggravation of having to stay and further discuss the evidence. At this
point these jurors are not keeping an open mind and they are ignoring reason. During the first scene
the camera is focusing on

Essay about Influencing an Entire Crowd in 12 Angry Men
Twelve Angry Men is a movie that was made in 1957. The movie is a classic showing how one
person can change the minds of an entire crowd. In this group of a dozen jurors you have very
different personalities and also you have some men that want to be leaders and some that do not.
Also the movie demonstrates that actions and behaviors of the twelve jurors. This is an example of
small group communications. The juror that was the Architect in the suit was probably the strongest
leader in the group. (12 angry men, 1957). Before the twelve jurors started to deliberate they were
all very nice to each other. Then when they started to talk about the trial they all where ready to
convict the boy. From the beginning the Architect was ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
He knew he was there to do a job and no one was going to influence him. He always was trying to
convince the group that they were there to protect democracy. Sometimes, he was so wrapped up in
his own decision that he forgot about the human being in the situation. He believed that if the
government says that a murderer must be punished, he was going to make sure that happened. He
was always trying to make the other jurors in the group feel guilty if they did not accuse the boy of
murder. Then when some of the jurors decided to be on his side he becomes very defensive and
makes sure the other jurors feel like they are messing up because of the feelings they had. Another
leader in the group was the salesman. He was the leader who was on the side of the group members
that really didn't care about the case. Most of them just wanted to go home because they were bored.
He would keep hinting that there needed to be a hung jury.(Rose, 2006). By his leadership it almost
seemed like he was the third most powerful man in the room, but you could clearly see that he
wasn't as powerful as the first two leaders with the group. Finally, his problem was that he had know
real idea how to deal with the situation that was being dealt to them while the other two men always
had an opinion and they were able to led the group of men with their beliefs. Then next was the
salesman that is always

Twelve Jurors In The Film 12 Angry Men

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Elizabeth Anderson

More from Elizabeth Anderson (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Twelve Jurors In The Film 12 Angry Men