A persons surroundings can influence him. In “12 Angry Men’ by Reginald Rose a young mans life is held by twelve men with contrasting views. After hearing, the case the jurors go into deliberations. Eleven of the 12 are convinced that the boy murdered his father.
However, Juror # 8 a caring man, who wishes to talk about why the other jurors think that the boy is guilty, clashes with Juror # 3, a sadistic man who would pull the switch himself to end the boys life. Early on, it’s not revealed why #3 feels so strongly about putting the boy to death. He is just so dead set on killing him though. But because of Juror # 8, the others must now go over the whole case again to review the facts. According to Rose, several elements can influence a jury’s verdict, such as the emotional make-up of individual jurors. Many elements can change a jurors decision.
Juror #3, who is convinced that the boy is guilty, and is allied with Juror#4, who is eventually convinced by #8 showing of how the two testimonies given by the old woman and old man are lies, votes guilty. Three outraged by this exclaims “A guilty man’s gonna be walking the streets… he’s got to die! Stay with me.’ But #4 sees the truth that #8 has brought into the light and still votes guilty. Juror #8 tries to convince #3 how the boy is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt but #3 does not listen and would rather see the boy die. “For this kid, you bet I’d pull the switch.’ This shows how emotionally unstable Juror #3 is. He is a grown man living in a civilized community and would like to see a boy who he does not even know die by his own hands Juror #8 does not think highly of Three for what he says about killing the boy and shouts “your a sadist.’ which is the absolute truth about Three.
The Term Paper on Reasonable Doubt Juror Boy Man
In Twelve Angry Men, the audience gets to view the two sides of the legal system. We view the institution that would want to be objective, and the human element, the jury, where each individual brings his own personal subjective point of view. This movie exposes the different types of people called to judge ones peers and the complexity of human nature and what different circumstances influence a ...
The emotional make-up of a juror can change his decision on weather or not to let a man live or die. When someone is asked to judge someone else, should not you look at al the facts to be sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that the man who committed the crime is guilty? Yes, a juror should look at all the facts but some do not, they just judge the person on looks or how that person feels. In the end, #3 gives in after all the jurors have changed their guilty votes to not guilty, because of # 8. He is left behind. His hatred of the boy revealed because of his similar experiences with his own son.
This story shows how close the boy came to death, and if the jurors did not review the evidence, he would have just been killed. It rather teaches the lesson of not jumping to conclusions and reviewing facts thoroughly before acting on vague ones. It really taught me that lesson.
