Based on the play we wrote, you can tell the differences to each characters personality. Each character has a fact based side, but also have their own personal characteristics thrown into the mix. Juror Eight is against the death penalty, being calm and open minded to both sides. Unlike Eight, Juror Three is for the Death Penalty. He is very rude, stubborn, and close minded to both sides of the argument. Juror Three not open to other’s ideas, short tempered, and insolent.
Firstly, when juror 5, was trying to state how people don’t deserve to die, Juror 3 says, “Sure they do! Especially if they murdered someone. They are getting what they deserved. If they kill someone, they should be killed. Like they say, ‘An eye for an eye.’” This shows …show more content…
Based off the script we wrote, in order to find ways out of his problems he uses rude comments. In our script he says “I just know he was guilty, the good for nothing scumbag---“. Juror 3 uses hateful words to solve his problems, because he doesn’t have any fact based comebacks to share with the other jurors. He also interrupts juror 5 when he is explaining how he grew up from the slums. When juror 5 tries to explain his background, he says “[Dismissively] Are you sure this is important?”. Juror 3 doesn't see the importance of what juror 5 was trying to say. He simply interrupted him, and didn’t allow juror 5 finish what he was trying to say. Easily irritated, juror three always seems to get mad. When juror 8 tells juror 3 to prove why the kid is guilty, juror 3 just loses his temper. In the play he says, “Oh I’ll show you--”. In this line it shows how easily he can get mad and upset.
Juror 3 is a flat character, he doesn't really change throughout the entire script. He only is there to make the story have conflict and so the story can move along. If juror 3 is not in the story, there would be no conflicts to help move the plot along and the story wouldn't be as interesting without an argument. It's important to understand these types of people in our society because not only do we need to see their viewpoint, we also get to learn and understand why they think the way they
Firstly, when juror 5, was trying to state how people don’t deserve to die, Juror 3 says, “Sure they do! Especially if they murdered someone. They are getting what they deserved. If they kill someone, they should be killed. Like they say, ‘An eye for an eye.’” This shows …show more content…
Based off the script we wrote, in order to find ways out of his problems he uses rude comments. In our script he says “I just know he was guilty, the good for nothing scumbag---“. Juror 3 uses hateful words to solve his problems, because he doesn’t have any fact based comebacks to share with the other jurors. He also interrupts juror 5 when he is explaining how he grew up from the slums. When juror 5 tries to explain his background, he says “[Dismissively] Are you sure this is important?”. Juror 3 doesn't see the importance of what juror 5 was trying to say. He simply interrupted him, and didn’t allow juror 5 finish what he was trying to say. Easily irritated, juror three always seems to get mad. When juror 8 tells juror 3 to prove why the kid is guilty, juror 3 just loses his temper. In the play he says, “Oh I’ll show you--”. In this line it shows how easily he can get mad and upset.
Juror 3 is a flat character, he doesn't really change throughout the entire script. He only is there to make the story have conflict and so the story can move along. If juror 3 is not in the story, there would be no conflicts to help move the plot along and the story wouldn't be as interesting without an argument. It's important to understand these types of people in our society because not only do we need to see their viewpoint, we also get to learn and understand why they think the way they