Which would be more important when it comes to making decisions, the facts or personal experience? What effect does it have on the outcome?
In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, twelve different members of the jury must make their decision on whether the defendant, who was accused of murdering his father should be guilty or not guilty. While discussing elements of the case, a few jurors speak based off of personal experience. Conflict and more characterization about the juror is the result.
Twelve different men are present in the jury. All twelve of them have a different point of view. With many of their different views, backgrounds, and personal experiences, it all ties into the jury's final decision . With such a diverse group, many …show more content…
Juror 3’s actions is what reveals to the audience that he has an extreme disliking towards the defendant. Juror 3 says, “You can't turn now. A guilty man’s going to be walking the streets. A murderer! He’s got to die! Stay with me!...” (587-588). Juror 3 sticks to his opinion for a while but finally gives in at the end. Juror 3 says, “All right!” and “Not guilty!” (588).
Earlier in the story, it was revealed that Juror 3 had a bad relationship with his son, so Juror 3 seemed to be harboring deep resentment towards the defendant. Juror 3’s relationship with his son is what played a huge part in why he felt hatred towards the defendant. Juror 3 clearly never stated any factual arguments and he let his emotions get in the way of that. All eleven jurors voted not guilty since all of the facts were stated, and they were just waiting on Juror 3 to say his facts but he couldn't.
By the end Juror 3 realizes he is wrong and that the only reason he didn't like the defendant and thought he was guilty was because of how him and his son get along. Despite all of the evidence presented in the jury, Juror 3 had an internal conflict with
In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, twelve different members of the jury must make their decision on whether the defendant, who was accused of murdering his father should be guilty or not guilty. While discussing elements of the case, a few jurors speak based off of personal experience. Conflict and more characterization about the juror is the result.
Twelve different men are present in the jury. All twelve of them have a different point of view. With many of their different views, backgrounds, and personal experiences, it all ties into the jury's final decision . With such a diverse group, many …show more content…
Juror 3’s actions is what reveals to the audience that he has an extreme disliking towards the defendant. Juror 3 says, “You can't turn now. A guilty man’s going to be walking the streets. A murderer! He’s got to die! Stay with me!...” (587-588). Juror 3 sticks to his opinion for a while but finally gives in at the end. Juror 3 says, “All right!” and “Not guilty!” (588).
Earlier in the story, it was revealed that Juror 3 had a bad relationship with his son, so Juror 3 seemed to be harboring deep resentment towards the defendant. Juror 3’s relationship with his son is what played a huge part in why he felt hatred towards the defendant. Juror 3 clearly never stated any factual arguments and he let his emotions get in the way of that. All eleven jurors voted not guilty since all of the facts were stated, and they were just waiting on Juror 3 to say his facts but he couldn't.
By the end Juror 3 realizes he is wrong and that the only reason he didn't like the defendant and thought he was guilty was because of how him and his son get along. Despite all of the evidence presented in the jury, Juror 3 had an internal conflict with