12 Angry Men Juror 8 Analysis

Improved Essays
The play “Twelve Angry Men” displays an interesting story with compelling characters. This play plays with your mind on about who’s right and wrong. The case tricks the Juror's mind if the boy is even guilty at all. This starts a huge drama story with a few cases of confusion . The “Hero” of the play or the person who convinced every Juror that the boy was Not-guilty is Juror Eight. Juror Eight is the hero of the play because of him convincing the other juror’s that the evidence was false and proving the “Old man’s” view of what happened false. changes the other Juror’s minds as well. In some ways Eight did bring a good point making the evidence false. There were two witnesses during the murderer case. One was an old man, and the other was an old lady, both of these people saw, or heard when it happened, but the old man was much closer to the scene . This makes some Juror’s suspicious with this old man’s “Evidence” which leads to Eight explaining on why he thinks it’s false. “Eight: Something doesn’t fit….., Five: Well it stands to reason -, Three: You’re crazy! Why would he lie? What’s he got to gain, Nine: Attention maybe?” Eight makes a good statement when saying that the Old man’s view doesn’t make sense due to the El train blocking his view and hearing. Nine tends to agree with Eight saying that the old ma In the beginning of the play almost every Juror in the room picks “Guilty” except for Juror Eight. He believes that the boy is “Not-Guilty” saying that the evidence is somewhat false. Of course the other Jurors don’t believe it. At one point he takes out a knife that …show more content…
It’s fascinating to know that this show is more than just a “Murder Case”. It plays with your mind on who is right? This book wouldn’t be that “compelling” without Juror Eight who always kept going. Juror Eight is the hero of the play due to him convincing the other JUror’s that the boy was

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Juror eight did a tremendous job of appealing to the emotions of the others; as his approach changes the minds of the jurors. For example, Juror number nine says “this gentleman has been standing alone against us, he doesn’t say the boy isn’t guilty, he just isn’t sure” (12 angry men 1957). This statement by juror nine gives the viewers an understanding on how good juror eight appealed to the emotions of the others. He did not say that the boy wasn’t guilty; he provided evidence, and showed the others that there are possibilities that the boy did not kill his father. The discussion continues as they bring up the testimony of the witnesses of the murder.…

    • 1678 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In the play, 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, the characters of this story appear to be nothing more than average people picked to stand and listen to a case of a boy accused of homicide. As the characters are supposed to leave personal issues at the door of the case, some appear to use them against the boy. Using these imperfect jurors, people can see how that when insecurities, flaws, and the law form together, the justice system can be found. The justice system is neither perfect nor is it imperfect. To sum it up, is people are put to the test of humanity to decide what must become of the case.…

    • 1288 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    There is a reasonable doubt in my mind.” (Rose 62) Juror #8 was able to argue using the facts to persuade his fellow jurors to see the boy as innocent so that they did not send an innocent man to his death. Our judicial system worked in this play and we received a fair verdict for the boy that was charged. However, The Crucible ended differently, eventually leading John Proctor to say, “ You have made your magic now, for now, I do think I see some shred of goodness in John Proctor. Not enough to wave a banner with, but white enough to keep it from such dogs.” (Miller 144) Proctor is saying here that by keeping silent and not admitting to a crime he didn’t commit it makes him a better person, he has kept his soul and not sold it to save his himself. He will not be persuaded to abandon who he is but stand by the fact that he knows he is innocent and the people who are sending him to be hung are the real witches.…

    • 1680 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It is not a permanent solution though, and people go back to thinking that he is innocent. As a result he only gets more angry with juror eight and makes him think that the kid is guilty. Overall, juror number three is an angry man who only believes what he’s told himself to make him feel better. He only appreciates the opinions that he has believed all his life. He yells at people a lot when someone disagrees with him.…

    • 704 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The majority of the jurors did not follow ‘innocent until proven guilty’, rather, they worked the opposite way. This is due to their personal biases. Under Juror 8’s influence, the men began ’talking for an hour’ using ‘reasonable doubt’, thus allowing the men to reach a sensible conclusion. This may have otherwise cost the life of a minor. The film exposes through Juror 8 that the superficial evidence should be dismissed to allow for deeper analysis of the case.…

    • 661 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He is racism, not proper thinker, abusive, prejudice, arrogant, insensitive and biased. Most of jurors doesn't like him based on his opinion and speech was disturbs the rest of juror. Changes his mind when all the others jurors are against him and specifically when jury 4 tells him to keep quite and not to speak. Juror 11 was interested to be a jury because he has witnessed great injustices that happen before. He was described as a good decision maker, rational thinker, supportive, team player, open-minded, agreeable and good natured.…

    • 1243 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Then juror #2 responds, “TWO (nervously laughing). Well … I guess … they’re entitled”. This boy’s life is in jeopardy and these men are joking about why the case took so long. the most noted argument in my mind was after every single juror voted guilty in the first vote except for juror #8 who voted not guilty. This wasn 't because he definitely thought the boy was not guilty, he said he didn 't know whether he was or not which is considered a reasonable doubt.…

    • 1003 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Disagreements tend to happen often, which most likely causes arguments, threats, and other unpleasant actions. When a person does not agree with you, you automatically want to convince them otherwise. In the play ‘’12 angry men’’ all 12 men that are on jury have to come to an agreement of guilty or not guilty for a case of a nineteen year old male who is begin charge of murder. As soon as the play began one of the twelve men had already accused the boy as guilty without any discussion or evidence as the play continued he also makes remarks of the color of his skin and how he isn't a mature young man. I quote juror number ten “‘ You're gonna tell me were supposed to believe his kid, knowing what he is.” As the men kept arguing the case…

    • 343 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He also does not have a lot of power in the room, which contributes to his guilty vote. When the foreman said, “All those voting “guilty” raise your hands,” Juror #2 immediately looks around the room and saw some hands raise and then raises his own hand (11). Because of his unassertive personality, he is vulnerable to the other juror’s opinions. Although he is extremely timid, he starts to gain his voice because he is starting to get tired of being pushed aside by Juror #3 and begins to participate…

    • 992 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The people Salem were outraged by this so called witchcraft that’s going around the city to the point that they decided to called high ranking judges so Danforth and two other men were a part of the case that went on in Salem. He being in the criminal justice field for such a long time has gotten the reputation of being such an impeccable judge that makes the right decision for the people. While being involved with this case started to become bias when it comes to some characters in the play. Him being a good Christian man he thinks that people were telling the truth about seeing witches and conjuring things up with the devil instead of listening to their own representation of the reason why they’re in that type of situation. When Danforth had to handle the case with John Proctor he stated “A person is either with this court or he must be against counted it (Miller 85)”.…

    • 1146 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays