Analysis Of Oj Simpson And Ron Simpson In 12 Angry Men

Amazing Essays
A typical jury is charged with the responsibility of deciding whether a person is guilty or not guilty of what they are charged. We were not a typical jury. Instead of deciding whether or not Oj Simpson is guilty or Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman’s deaths, we decided if he is responsible for the deaths. This changes the dynamic of our jury and the topics that will be discussed.
The jurors in our jury had very distinct characteristics. For example, the Leader guided the discussion in a calm manner while still stating his opinions. The Leader proved to effective when explaining what side he was on and why. The radical juror was fairly stuck in his ways and did not seem to comprehend anyone else’s opinions. The Funny one lightened the mood
…show more content…
His points were irrelevant to the case at hand and did not help. The Princess stated his opinions and argued his points. He was fairly dramatic during the jury but was useful. The Smart one helped convince people to switch sides the most with well-formed arguments. The Skeptical one stayed on the not responsible side until the very last discussion day due to doubts. The Angry one yelled a lot and was very passionate. He did end up helping convince jurors but it was also hard to follow him since everyone else was wrong in his eyes. In 12 Angry Men, Juror #3 was not receptive to anyone else’s ideas. He has his opinion and is unwilling or unable to discuss with others. In our jury, The Angry One also exhibited these characteristics. The New juror came in the second to last day and had opinions but mostly kept quiet. The Quiet one did not do much talking except for voting. Every juror plays a distinct part in deciding the fate of the defendant, which showed during 12 Angry Men and during a personal jury when deciding whether or not OJ Simpson was …show more content…
Although it was a unanimous vote, we made a timeline that everyone should agree on to prove that OJ was responsible. In comparison to 12 Angry Men, Juror #8 tries to put himself in the boy’s (who’s on trial) shoes to understand any possible motives. In a similar way, we put ourselves in OJ’s shoes to try to find any possible motive. We then tried to work out if he could commit this crime in a reasonable window of time. We moved a lot of the timeline due to the witnesses’ testimonies and discussion if they were reliable or not. In addition to this, we tried to get accurate times by using Google maps to verify how long it would take to get to one place. We also accounted for typical L.A. traffic around the time of the murders. Still all voted

Related Documents

  • Decent 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
    Decent Essays
  • Decent 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
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Juror 8 is the only juror to oppose his peers. Juror 10 states, “Boy oh boy! There is always one.” The rest of the jury tries to intimidate and convince Juror 8 that there is no doubt the boy on trial is guilty. They are solely focused on coming to a conclusion and finishing their duties as soon as possible. On multiple occasions of the preliminary discussions jurors states things such as “What do you think you are going to accomplish you won’t change anybody’s mind (Fonda & Lumet, 1957).” Ivancevich, Konopaske, & Matteson (2011.)…

    • 1544 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    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. This set a lot of the jurors off because a lot of them just wanted everything to be done so they could go home. Other jurors just couldn 't believe and got mad that juror #8 voted not guilty. Once juror #8 convinces the rest of the jury to discuss it further before they make a decision, the personal bias of some of the jurors really came out. For example juror #10 comes out and says, “I don’t mind telling you this, mister.…

    • 1003 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent 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
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This man is practically the whole reason why everyone questions their decisions of the boy. He saw no reason as to why they shouldn’t sit in and talk a little about the case before shipping someone off to their death. Referring to figure 1, notice that Juror 8 is a speech bubble. He takes on this role due to the fact he was the only one not afraid to stand out and make an opinion upon the other eleven jurors. “There were eleven votes for guilty.…

    • 1288 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The film 12 Angry Men is about a jury who struggles to set aside their individual prejudices to determine the guilt or innocence of a man accused of premeditated murder. The main character is juror #8 who is played by Henry Fonda. The film focuses on labeling theory and how that influences a juror’s opinions and thoughts. It is extremely interesting to watch how most of the jurors had their minds made up about the case even before deliberation; however, as the film progresses the jurors stop labeling the defendant and instead make their verdict decision based on facts. The audience can see from this film that labeling an individual in the 1950’s might have been common, and unfortunately I believe that it still exists in today’s…

    • 701 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Juror 3 In 12 Angry Men

    • 823 Words
    • 4 Pages

    He is soft spoken and looks as if he has given up on life, which shows in the way he walks and holds himself, but is observant, wise and has a fair-minded attitude and wants that justice be done. A fairly quiet person, he managed to change the minds of other jurors to vote as “ not guilty”, based on his strong arguments and by raising a number of reasonable doubts. He is the first one to support juror 8 as he feels that although at that point he thinks the boy is guilty, he did not want juror 8 to stand on his own against the others. He mentioned that he felt as if he knew the old man, who was one of the witnesses, further explaining that the old man was probably saying more than he knew because he was seeking attention so everyone would take notice of him. Juror 9 felt a connection here with the old witness, as he himself knew how it felt to be old and alone.…

    • 823 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Roles In Twelve Angry Men

    • 1522 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Juror ten is the garage owner who has regular anger outburst like juror three the angry father. Most of the time he is a loud outspoken person with strong beliefs on his own opinions without looking at different perspectives. As a result he can be seen as the stage hog, because he wants to be heard by speaking loud and obnoxiously. He also does not let other jurors speak fully, because their opinions are not clearly important to him. As a result, it caused all the other jurors to turn their backs on him, while he was…

    • 1522 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    12 Angry Men Group Analysis

    • 3419 Words
    • 14 Pages

    Here also it has been strongly depicted that the group dynamics play ahighly important role in changing the mindset of its members. For example the character playedby PankajKapur was very stringent and stubborn for most of the part of the movie, but the groupwas successful in changing his perception regarding the new generation. I would start the teambuilding process in the movie from the beginning.2. Facilitating better group effectiveness by honing every member’s decision makingabilities: at the beginning of the discussion 11 out of 12 jurors considered the accused to beguilty of murdering his father. The final decision made later shows that even after so manysessions in the court many issues were left unexplored.…

    • 3419 Words
    • 14 Pages
    Decent Essays