The real reason he was being so obnoxious was because he had issues with his teenage son which effected his opinions about teenagers. That is why he was voting guilty throughout the movie. No one knew about his son, and background so they had no clue why he was so obnoxious. When juror #3's emotions were revealed everyone knew why he was so angry and that changed everyone thought about him.
This movie was all about non-ethical and lazy like sayings, such as: “lets get it over quick” and “who really cares”. One guy, the 8th juror, did not agree with these saying’s and believed that a tough decision like this could not be decided in 5 minutes. He played a smart game, which we call ’playing devils advocate’. While the 11 men thought the person charged was guilty, this one juror thought differently. The 12 angry men were your average men, but each one had a different side.
In the play, “Twelve Angry Men”, by Reginald Rose, it illustrate the strengths and weaknesses in society during the 1950’s in America. By highlighting the 8th Juror’s defender of democracy montage, his ability to go against the mainstream mirrors the way in which Americans would dispute McCarthyism of such actions by addressing the prejudice that is embedded into the 3rd and 10th Jurors. However, it is through such controversial views that allow for a unanimous verdict to be reached. The 8th Juror’s stance against the other jury men prove to be a strength within the deliberations. Although the 8th Juror was the only individual in the jury room, who did not raise his hand to vote guilty in the initial vote, as he “[couldn’t] send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” He still held firm to his ideals of just talking about the case before any actions were to be taken.
Juror #2 was a very frantic and nervous type of guy. In the beginning he voted the boy guilty, but by the end of the film his reasonable doubt had him opposed to that previous notion. Juror #3 was the assumed “antagonist” which fits his character very well. He was all for the young boy’s execution the whole time until he glanced at a picture that held some type of symbolism to him when he finally broke down and voted innocent. Juror #4 the Wall Street guy was very analytical about his vote.
In the movie 12 Angry Men there are several people who could be considered a hero. Some would say that the true hero was Juror Number 6, who first doubted the guiltiness of the young man; some would say it was the Foreman who kept relative order in the room; however, Juror Number 7 should definitely not be overlooked. Number 7, along with contributing an important piece of knowledge, was the one who stopped the delivery of the guilty verdict, he was the first to vocally agree with Juror Number 6. Juror Number 6 was without a doubt one of the most important men in the room, but without the help of Juror Number 7 the guilty verdict would have been given to the judge. Number 7 was the first true believer; he went out on a limb, in wanting to find the truth, when he could have very easily anonymously voted guilty and they could have been done with the situation.
According to me, all of the jurors except one showed passive behavior in the start of the movie. All of the eleven jurors already made up their mind that the boy is guilty, but as the movie proceeds many changed their decisions. I think the juror # 12 displayed the most passive behavior because when majority voted the boy as guilty he also voted him guilty and when the facts were presented and most people voted the boy innocent he immediately changed his vote to not guilty. Assertive behavior was clearly showed by one juror from the beginning till the end and that was juror # 8, the architect. He eventually convinced all of the jurors by giving facts and different details about the case, but he did all of that in a
12 Angry Men 12 Angry Men Tia Pierce Benedictine University The film 12 Angry Men was not only entertaining but it illustrates many social psychology concepts. The film features a group of twelve jurors who must decide the guilt or innocence of man accused of murdering his own father. Initially eleven of the twelve jurors were set on a guilty vote. Lead by one jurors attempt to convince the others that guilty beyond reasonable doubt had not been proven and that a not guilty verdict might be appropriate and through tense and sometimes heated discussions, gradually, each juror changed their vote to not guilty. The twelve jurors in this film make up a Group.
In fact, it is this dynamic on which the trial-by-jury system relies. At its best, a jury – like any team working together to produce a specified result – will draw on the different personalities, approaches and strengths of each individual team member to achieve a creative abrasion which, in turn, will allow them to produce the “right” (and fair) verdict. When the jury first convenes, eleven of the 12 jurors are convinced of the boy’s guilt (e.g. juror 3 – “this is an open and shut case”): • A minority of the jurors actually seem convinced of the boy’s guilt by virtue of the testimony given in court. • Others are basing their decision on their own deeply rooted prejudices – again others on personal experiences.
Davis the name of number 8 juror tried to convince the members of the jury and he succeed to change their minds. Davis was smart and logically man, he started doubt the evidence by the switch knife. The jurors believed the knife belongs to the eighteen years old guy and he stabbed it in his father chest, Davis made his argument by said might the murder used another knife looked like the guy’s knife and he showed the jurors a knife looked like the knife was used to kill the man. After this argument the one of jurors #9 changed his vote to not guilty. After that #5 juror who had a problem to express his opinion, he changed his mind and vote for not guilty.
The first Juror to vote not-guilty in the case, is Juror eight, a self-actualized man with an Engineer-type personality, who suggests the jury first discuss the facts of the case before condemning the accused eighteen year old to death. As a natural thinker, expert in rhetoric, and individual with a high social and emotional IQ, which allows him to relate and understand people well, Juror eight manages to put doubt into the minds of the other juror’s about the accuracy of the evidence provided in the courtroom. For instance, he uses a combination of ethos, logos and pathos when explaining how the court story of the club legged old man, who heard the murder and saw the boy running down the stairs, flawed. In the story the club legged old man tells in court, he heard someone cry-out and a body hit the floor above him before he hurried from his bed to the door at the end of the hall, about sixty-five feet away, in ten seconds and opened the door just in time to see the eighteen year old running down the stairs. In the jury room, Juror eight first used pathos, to appease to the emotion and sympathy of the