12 Angry Jurors 3/10 Different Essay Example
In a crowded jury room, opinions collide as discussions about the innocence of a young boy are decided. The dark and foreboding storm clouds that hang over the heads of the jurors are beginning to lift as time progresses and new facts are presented. The two men that cannot put their personal emotions aside are juror 3 and juror 10. These men are motivated by their emotions rather than the evidence.
Juror 3 is a strong, forceful man who refuses to alter his vote. Being very opinionated, he looks at the evidence “you sat right there in court and heard the same things, I did” (14) and doesn’t think beyond the facts. Still haunted by his own son, he verbally assaults the other jurors with mighty tone that knowing that a kid like his son is going to be locked up. Juror 3 and his son had some troubles with their relationship in the past. Juror 3 comes right out and says that he was going to make a man out of his son or bust him trying. Which in the end his son slaps his father across the face finally beating him back for the first time and fled town; since that day they haven’t spoken or seen each other. Since juror 3 feels that his son was not the way he was supposed to turn out, his feelings of his son were building up inside of him and were faced towards the case of the convicted.
On the other hand, juror 10 is a loud mouthed, racist bigot. He scolds people he doesn’t agree with and a low opinion of people living in slum areas. Juror #10 is the character who brings in the most prejudice to the jury room as he has formed his decision from the moment he saw the young boy and sees no reason for him to waste any time debating on whether the defendant is guilty. His prejudice comes from the fact he used to live in the “slums” and considers people like the defendant to be “trash”. This is established when he states “well take a look at them…you can’t believe a word they say…they act different… they don’t need any big excuse to kill someone. (59) This man is very
Juror 3 is a strong, forceful man who refuses to alter his vote. Being very opinionated, he looks at the evidence “you sat right there in court and heard the same things, I did” (14) and doesn’t think beyond the facts. Still haunted by his own son, he verbally assaults the other jurors with mighty tone that knowing that a kid like his son is going to be locked up. Juror 3 and his son had some troubles with their relationship in the past. Juror 3 comes right out and says that he was going to make a man out of his son or bust him trying. Which in the end his son slaps his father across the face finally beating him back for the first time and fled town; since that day they haven’t spoken or seen each other. Since juror 3 feels that his son was not the way he was supposed to turn out, his feelings of his son were building up inside of him and were faced towards the case of the convicted.
On the other hand, juror 10 is a loud mouthed, racist bigot. He scolds people he doesn’t agree with and a low opinion of people living in slum areas. Juror #10 is the character who brings in the most prejudice to the jury room as he has formed his decision from the moment he saw the young boy and sees no reason for him to waste any time debating on whether the defendant is guilty. His prejudice comes from the fact he used to live in the “slums” and considers people like the defendant to be “trash”. This is established when he states “well take a look at them…you can’t believe a word they say…they act different… they don’t need any big excuse to kill someone. (59) This man is very