Analysis Of Juror # 8 In 12 Angry Men
In the play “Twelve Angry Men” the Juror No.8 was a very important character, without him there would not have been any conflict and the young boy would have been executed without a proper trial. An Architect by profession, he stood out from the rest of jurors. He had the gift for intuitive thinking, understanding complex human relationships and inspiring others. He believed in trial-by-jury system and did his best to have the necessary procedures to come up with a fair outcome. His profession might have been one of the reasons that the Juror was so analytical, organized and compartmentalized in his thinking. He had the ability to see things from different perspective and had the courage to act on his beliefs. He also had the ability …show more content…
He was one of the most timid Juror, and since he shared similar background with the defendant, Juror 8 made personal connection with him and seeked his consultation (consistently asking him for his opinion).
After the trial he voted guilty because he felt everyone else thought the same too, he was not the kind of person who had a strong stand like Juror No.8. But at some level he was confident about his decision (guilty) since, he did not change his vote (during the second vote) even after he was insulted by other Jurors about his origin. The reason for not changing his decision maybe he felt that it was not right to let a murderer out in the street because he was offended by other Jurors. Sensitive and soft spoken, he was nervous about expressing his feelings especially in front of his seniors. But at some instances when the other Jurors were stereotyping the defendant because he was from slum made him uncomfortable and he quotes- “I lived in a slum all my life, I used to play in the backyard that was filled with garbage. Maybe it still smells on me. There is something