Juror 8 is someone who can be seen to have all of these qualities, and approaches the position of being a jury member with a very open mind, of which Reginald Rose illustrates to be a desirable characteristic especially given the decision that needs to be made in relation to the accused’s life. Juror 8 also overcomes the challenge of expressing his reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty to all the other jurors, facing incredible prejudice and bias against what he says.
Rose above all though shows Juror 8’s heroism to the reader when at the conclusion of the play they realise that had Juror 8 not been a part of the jury, the boy most likely would have been wrongly been found guilty. Whilst we are not told much about the person Juror 8 is, it’s through his actions and words that we learn he is a very respectable individual. His occupation as an architect allows us to assume he is well educated, and his patience with even the most intolerable men is admirable when they claim being a part of the jury is a “goddam waste of time”.
The reader also begins to see Juror 8 as an inquisitive person when he begins to challenge the evidence that was presented in court, even though he “doesn’t know whether [he] believe[s] it or not” and realises that the “facts staring [the jury] in the face are all wrong”. The reader see’s Juror 8 standing alone to uphold justice and not allowing his personal opinions or beliefs to influence what he says and thus see him as a hero for doing so.
The Term Paper on Whether Trial By Jury Should Be Abolished In The English Legal System?
Jury selection is laid down in the Juries Act 1994. While it is proven that there are reasonable alternatives to a jury trial and that there is no doubt that jury trial is both time consuming and expensive when compared with trial by magistrates or by a judge alone, however the right to a jury trial shall not be dismissed so lightly. The anti jury lobby deems the jury system unpopular the ...
It’s by standing alone like this that Rose shows Juror 8 to represent humanity, reason and justice. Additionally, the adverse opposition Juror 8 initially receives does not appear to be something that phases him in the slightest. In fact, only once does Juror 8 appear to become angered when Juror 10 and Juror 12 play tic-tac-toe. This illustrates the views of some of the Juror’s not taking the jury seriously, and their unwillingness to consider the real possibilities whilst being led to believe what allegedly happened through evidence.
Juror 8 is in fact the only individual who seems remotely passionate in finding the truth, believing that even what was testified in court might not be what happened that night. Rose uses the other jurors to represent the fact that no matter what capacity an individual is placed in, not everyone can put personal beliefs aside and it is through this that the reader sees the destructive influence of prejudice and stereotypes. Not all jurors show this though, and the reader sees wisdom come into the picture when Juror 9 gives Juror 8 his support, for the reason that he “respect[s] his motives”.
Each juror changes their opinion as they overcome what could be perceived as their stubborness, and Juror 8 is again seen as the hero for instigating deeper thought of not just the case itself, but in each Juror as he considers the information being put forward to him, and what to make of it. Finally, Rose uses the anominity of the jurors to prehaps allow the reader to build their own ideas around what each juror represents to them. With Juror 8’s desirable characteristics, the reader can be inclined to think of ways they can be more like Juror 8, seeing situations in a different light to what they may appear in.
By looking up to Juror 8 as that role model and possibly relating to the accused boy, they can ultimately see that the only reason he lived was because of Juror 8’s open-minded approach to looking at the big picture. In the world we live in today, nothing could be scarier than the idea that justice is served wrongly, and had Juror 8 not been present on the jury and someone similar to Juror 3 who just wanted to “go home and catch the game”, or Juror 10 who generalised that “the kids who crawl outa those places are real trash” took his place, the accused boy would have had justice served wrongly against him, ending his life.
The Essay on Ssa Rose Man Story Ssthe
Married To Be Alone? Although marriage is the symbol of two lives! | union, in the real world many people experience it in the opposite way. Gloria Steinem says: ! SSThe surest way to be alone is to get married. !" In! SSThe Story of an Hour!" by Kate Chopin, we can certainly realize how well the author describes the loneliness of a marriage. There is another short story that also reflects the ...
The qualities Juror 8 possesses make him a hero, even when he knows that he “may be wrong”. In conclusion, Rose uses the qualities of Juror 8 to show heroism, and that even when one man can stand up against eleven other men and question their opinions, the outcome of the right decision can still be made. Juror 8 is seen as an admirable man, someone who stands up for what he believes in. He doesn’t allow the prejudice of other jurors to influence his opinion, and constantly looks at the big picture of what is happening. It’s through doing this and by standing up for how he sees things that he is seen as a hero amongst all readers.
