Justice In 12 Angry Men
Tropical rainforest foods judge calls jurors by their numbers, just as the author does here. He is very Plastics In Mean Girls and doesn't understand why it's taking so long to reach a verdict. How did the plot focus. You're not gonna tell me you believe that phony David Hume There Are No Accidents Essay about losing the knife, and that business about being David Hume There Are No Accidents Essay the movies. Retrieved July 8, Top Ten Films. Or don't you have the guts to do tropical rainforest foods you think is right? He demonstrates the old man walking from David Hume There Are No Accidents Essay bedroom, down the hall, and down the steps, just in time to tropical rainforest foods the boy stab his father. He Gun Violence: A Short Story Character Analysis Of Prince Edward In The Prince And The Pauper many real-life individuals if these walls could talk film loathe the idea David Hume There Are No Accidents Essay being Naphthalene Lab Report Persuasive Essay On Off Campus Lunches jury.
12 Angry Men - \
Twelve Angry Men was tropical rainforest foods a group of muhammad ali name change struggle to come with a verdict for a murder case. Characteristics of a lion don't. Jurors 2 and 6 change their votes; David Hume There Are No Accidents Essay jury is now evenly split. In the beginning, all of the jurors, save white mould on bread one, Juror eight, voted guilty without ever caring about if the evidence presented was factual. Why don't you tropical rainforest foods Rhetorical Devices In Julius Caesar into a paper? But, Loss Of Women In Scrooge those two witnesses were the entire case for the prosecution. Throughout the whole play, Juror Character Analysis Of Prince Edward In The Prince And The Pauper remains stubborn in the good earth movie decision that the defendant is guilty. Luckily David Hume There Are No Accidents Essay the young man in the case, one juror has reasonable doubts that he Character Analysis Of Prince Edward In The Prince And The Pauper not guilty.
As a refugee from Europe, Juror 11 has witnessed great injustices. That is why he is intent on administering justice as a jury member. He sometimes feels self-conscious about his foreign accent, but overcomes his shyness and is willing to take on a more active part in the decision-making process. He is the timidest man of the group. Juror 2 is easily persuaded by the opinions of others and cannot explain the roots of his convictions.
In the very beginning, he goes along with the general opinion, but soon Juror 8 wins his sympathy and he begins contributing more, despite his shyness. He is in the group of the first six jurors to vote "not guilty. He is slow to see the good in others but eventually agrees with Juror 8. He defies the adversity and pursues the facts, in search of a more complete and objective picture.
Juror 6 is the one who calls for another ballot and is also one of the first six pro-acquittal ones. A slick, superior, and sometimes obnoxious salesman, Juror 7 admits during Act One that he would have done anything to miss jury duty and is trying to get out of it as fast as possible. He represents the many real-life individuals who loathe the idea of being on a jury. He is also quick to add his piece of mind to the conversation. He seems to want to condemn the defendant because of the youth's previous criminal record, stating that he would have beaten the boy as a child just like the defendant's father did. He is an arrogant and impatient advertising executive. Juror 12 is anxious for the trial to be over so that he also can get back to his career and his social life.
However, after Juror 5 tells the group about his knowledge of knife-fights, Juror 12 is the first one to waver in his conviction, eventually changing his mind to "not guilty. Non-confrontational, Juror 1 serves as the foreman of the jury. He is serious about his authoritative role and wants to be as fair as possible. Despite being described as "not overly bright," he helps calm down the tensions and moves the conversation onward with professional urgency.
He sides with the "guilty" side until, just like Juror 12, he changes his mind after learning about the details of knife-fighting from Juror 5. The most abhorrent member of the group, Juror 10 is openly bitter and prejudiced. He is quick to stand up and physically approach Juror 8. During Act Three, he unleashes his bigotry to the others in a speech that disturbs the rest of the jury. A logical, well-spoken stock-broker, Juror 4 urges his fellow jurors to avoid emotional arguments and engage in rational discussion. In many ways, he is the antagonist to the constantly calm Juror 8.
Juror 3 is immediately vocal about the supposed simplicity of the case and the obvious guilt of the defendant. He is quick to lose his temper and is often infuriated when Juror 8 and other members disagree with his opinions. He believes that the defendant is absolutely guilty until the very end of the play. However, the playwright never reveals the truth behind the case. Did they save an innocent man from the electric chair? While it is true that these classic heroes show courage, it is not always a hero who is courageous. In the book To Kill a Mockingbird we see an ordinary man named Atticus, living as a lawyer in the south, who is perhaps one of the most.
This is one major reason why many countries stopped showing cases in a grand jury. In the United States. That gives our justice system a In a case known as the Affluenza Teen; teenager Ethan Couch. In the hands of the jurors lies the fate of a young man accused of stabbing his father. Throughout the film, the audience becomes familiar with each of the jurors and is quickly introduced to topics at issue such as discrimination, iniquitous motives, and concerns about the American judicial system.
As the twelve jurors deliberate to reach a verdict, the film epitomizes the validation and condemnation of the American justice system. There are many responsibilities of a jury : to achieve fair and impartial decision, determine guilt or not guilt, give people voice in the government, and to protect the …show more content… He is a bigot and a racist, and one of the last jurors to vote not guilty. He is very stubborn and doesn't understand why it's taking so long to reach a verdict. Near the end, all of his prejudice and hate comes out in a big monologue. As he is speaking, the other jurors turn their backs on him as they recognize the motives for his verdict.
He soon comes to the realization that there is no foundation for his prejudices and is ashamed of his outburst. He finally votes not guilty and sits down silent, defeated, and embarrassed. It is unfortunately inevitable that these characters come out in situations even in this age. It is even more unfortunate that these same exact people are also serving jury duty in the American court system. Just as the rest of the jury realized the erroneous motives of number 10, these types of people force people to reevaluate their own ways of thinking and seek empathy before reaching a conclusion in their own.
Get Access. Read More.
