Why Is Juror 8 Important In 12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men is a short drama written by Reginald Rose, which follows the trial of a Puerto Rican boy being tried for the murder of his father. This story helps expose the many flaws that are in the United States justice system, one of them being a shared prejudice amongst the jurors against the defendant. For example, Juror 3 an extremely opinioned bigot was selected even through so called “thorough” cross-examination. In contrast, there is Juror 8 a more quiet and thoughtful gentleman who seems to not have any prejudice. Juror 8 is a very respectable person who genuinely cares about letting the defendant have a fair trial. For instance, Juror 8 said, “There were eleven votes for guilty-it’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die…” This quote shows how understanding and thoughtful he is, due to him considering what the defendant may be going through emotionally for his life hangs in the balance. Furthermore, he remained with the same not-guilty vote since he was very dogged to seeing the boy released after the circumstantial proof he discovered that he indeed did not kill his father. As a result with his sheer determination and strength, tempered with compassion, was able to single-handedly convince the jurors of the defendant’s innocence.
…show more content…
On the other hand, Juror 3 is the polar opposite of Juror 8, for he is intolerant of others opinions that are unlike his own, and a racist.
For instance, Juror 3 said, “I have never saw a guiltier man in my life.” This quote shows that he’s making a judgment without reviewing any information at all, and seems to be quite confident despite his lack of evidence. Furthermore, later in the play, he begins a rant of racism, putting down immigrants, African-Americans, and Puerto Ricans a like, which leads to him losing credibility with the other Jurors of making a guilty decision against the defendant. As a result this leads to the defendant receiving the verdict of
“not-guilty”. This is a very well crafted story that is able to masterfully point out the flaws in the structure that is the justice system. Juror 8 is a man of reason. He is a man that is dogged and he is a man that seeks and follows through with the saying, “innocent until proven guilty.” Juror 3 in contrast follows through with the complete opposite even going as far as saying that the kid should be “guilty until proven innocent”. As a concluding result, there are indeed many flaws in the United States justice system, but with some revision could end up finally creating equality for all walks of life.
On the other hand, Juror 3 is the polar opposite of Juror 8, for he is intolerant of others opinions that are unlike his own, and a racist.
For instance, Juror 3 said, “I have never saw a guiltier man in my life.” This quote shows that he’s making a judgment without reviewing any information at all, and seems to be quite confident despite his lack of evidence. Furthermore, later in the play, he begins a rant of racism, putting down immigrants, African-Americans, and Puerto Ricans a like, which leads to him losing credibility with the other Jurors of making a guilty decision against the defendant. As a result this leads to the defendant receiving the verdict of
“not-guilty”. This is a very well crafted story that is able to masterfully point out the flaws in the structure that is the justice system. Juror 8 is a man of reason. He is a man that is dogged and he is a man that seeks and follows through with the saying, “innocent until proven guilty.” Juror 3 in contrast follows through with the complete opposite even going as far as saying that the kid should be “guilty until proven innocent”. As a concluding result, there are indeed many flaws in the United States justice system, but with some revision could end up finally creating equality for all walks of life.