A story that takes place during summer in a blazing hot jury room, filled with twelve hot-tempered men, is the defendant really guilty? In 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, a young boy is accused of killing his own father ruthlessly with a knife. It is now the duty of the twelve jurors to corroborate and come up with a fair verdict. Some jurors uses emotion to deal with the case, while others uses logic and provided strong evidence to support their claim. Juror Four and Juror Eight are similar in the way that they are both open-minded, take the trial seriously, and they also use logic to analyze problems.
Throughout the play, Juror 4 and Juror 8 has proven themselves to be very open-minded. They are able to take constructive opinions from others …show more content…
For instance, when Juror 4 said to everyone regarding about a baffling conflict, “I don't see any need for arguing like this. I think we ought to be able to behave like gentlemen." (16) This shows how Juror 4 is confident and determined to resolve the case and not play around. He tries very hard to calm many jurors down instead of letting it go and think of other things, this shows that he cares about the case. Moreover, Juror 8 also shows us that he cares about the case because he thinks and tries very hard to back up his claim so that is seems believable. To illustrate, when Juror 8 tries to retort back to a claim he thinks is false, “Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn't have to open his mouth. That's in the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment. You've heard of it." (18) This quote reveals how he is confident with his knowledge and tries very hard to think of a rebuttal against Juror 2 argument. He thinks that a rebuttal against a false statement is very important, because he doesn’t want Juror 2 to convince other people with his statement. In another example, Juror 8 exhibits how he takes the trial seriously by investigating the case in his own time, “I’m just saying it’s possible ... I got it last night in a little junk shop around the corner from the boy's …show more content…
In an example, Juror 4 said to Juror 8 with reference to a point that Juror 8 raise up, “The boy's entire story is flimsy. He claimed he was at the movies. That's a little ridiculous, isn't it? He couldn't even remember what pictures he saw." (18) Juror 4 uses logic to analyze the story that the boy told, he doesn’t think that the story was true, because he couldn’t even remember what pictures he saw. This shows that Juror 4 uses logic to analyze the circumstances, and his analyzation isn't based on emotions. In the same way, Juror 8 also uses logic to analyze problems. In other words, when Juror 8 said to everyone about the fact that the old man couldn’t hear the boy scream, “An el train takes ten seconds to pass a given point... The old man would have had to hear the boy say, ‘I’m going to kill you,’ while the front of the el was roaring past his nose. It’s not possible that he could have heard it.” (33) To clarify, Juror 8 doesn’t think that the old man could hear the boy scream because of the el train noise. This shows that Juror 8 is analyzing the situation with logic, and trying to see if the evidence presented is possible or not. Furthermore, Juror 8 also said to everyone that it is impossible for the old woman to witness the murder clearly, “I think it’s logical to say that she was not wearing her glasses in bed ... she testified that the murder took place
Throughout the play, Juror 4 and Juror 8 has proven themselves to be very open-minded. They are able to take constructive opinions from others …show more content…
For instance, when Juror 4 said to everyone regarding about a baffling conflict, “I don't see any need for arguing like this. I think we ought to be able to behave like gentlemen." (16) This shows how Juror 4 is confident and determined to resolve the case and not play around. He tries very hard to calm many jurors down instead of letting it go and think of other things, this shows that he cares about the case. Moreover, Juror 8 also shows us that he cares about the case because he thinks and tries very hard to back up his claim so that is seems believable. To illustrate, when Juror 8 tries to retort back to a claim he thinks is false, “Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn't have to open his mouth. That's in the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment. You've heard of it." (18) This quote reveals how he is confident with his knowledge and tries very hard to think of a rebuttal against Juror 2 argument. He thinks that a rebuttal against a false statement is very important, because he doesn’t want Juror 2 to convince other people with his statement. In another example, Juror 8 exhibits how he takes the trial seriously by investigating the case in his own time, “I’m just saying it’s possible ... I got it last night in a little junk shop around the corner from the boy's …show more content…
In an example, Juror 4 said to Juror 8 with reference to a point that Juror 8 raise up, “The boy's entire story is flimsy. He claimed he was at the movies. That's a little ridiculous, isn't it? He couldn't even remember what pictures he saw." (18) Juror 4 uses logic to analyze the story that the boy told, he doesn’t think that the story was true, because he couldn’t even remember what pictures he saw. This shows that Juror 4 uses logic to analyze the circumstances, and his analyzation isn't based on emotions. In the same way, Juror 8 also uses logic to analyze problems. In other words, when Juror 8 said to everyone about the fact that the old man couldn’t hear the boy scream, “An el train takes ten seconds to pass a given point... The old man would have had to hear the boy say, ‘I’m going to kill you,’ while the front of the el was roaring past his nose. It’s not possible that he could have heard it.” (33) To clarify, Juror 8 doesn’t think that the old man could hear the boy scream because of the el train noise. This shows that Juror 8 is analyzing the situation with logic, and trying to see if the evidence presented is possible or not. Furthermore, Juror 8 also said to everyone that it is impossible for the old woman to witness the murder clearly, “I think it’s logical to say that she was not wearing her glasses in bed ... she testified that the murder took place