12 Angry Men Juror 8

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. Slowly after reviewing all the evidence carefully the eleven to one vote switched from eleven thinking guilty to eleven thinking 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. The term critical thinking according to the book From Critical Thinking to Argument …show more content…
How he presents his opinions and supports them slowly convinces every man to change their vote. He shows very successful critical thinking skills through his ability to analyze evidence and present his reasoning skillfully. When they talk about the switchblade knife everyone is convinced he is guilty until juror #8 pulls out the exact same switchblade. While the other jurors press him with questions about the same knife he presented, all juror #8 says is “I bought it at a pawn shop two blocks from the boy’s house. It cost six dollars”. This is the first of many other small details that juror #8 presents to the others. He goes on to talk about the old man downstairs story about hearing the boys shout “I’m gonna kill ya” and the body hit the floor while a train passes by. He turns many jurors with his realization of this piece of evidence because the noise a train makes in a home right next to the tracks is unbearable. This realization makes more of the jurors change their mind on the guiltiness of the boy. The end of the movie shows all of the jurors change their vote to not guilty after being shown that the evidence presented was far to lacking to send the boy to the electric chair. He has analyzed the evidence present and questioned every single piece of it. Since he question the evidence presented he was able to make sense of otherwise …show more content…
He had a very quick temper and was easily riled up. Juror #3 reiterates the main points of the story; the boy left the house, came back the old man heard him yell, the body hit the floor, and the woman across the street saw him stab his father as the train passed by. He restates these vague events that were presented to him during the court case many times during the movie and gets more frustrated each time. He became very frustrated at everything juror #8 points out an explains. The whole movie he is defensive and lashes out at the other jurors. He let his own opinions and personal ideas fog the thinking that he should have been using to determine the fate of the young boy. It isn’t until the end of the movie where juror # 3’s anger was coming from. His son had left him and he was very upset about it, he took out his anger towards the young boy on trial. What changed his mind was when we see him take his anger out on his son's picture by ripping it up and then crying not guilty. He lacked the ability to analyze the evidence that was presented to him and present his findings effectively. He did not actively listening to what juror #8 was presenting, instead he was the first one to reject the ideas and in turn, yell and attempt to force his opinions onto the other jurors. He tried to use his forcefully loud voice to make his opinions sound more convincing, but it was