12 Angry Men And Lord Of The Flies Essay

Since he is unable to look into the facts and is in denial when they are presented, he does not closely analyse the details because deep down, he wants the boy to die, guilty or not. Had Juror 8 voted guilty, the boy would have died, whether he committed the crime or not. If the accused was innocent, they would have sent an innocent man to die without even taking the time to dig deeper to uncover the truth, to which justice would not have been served. Additionally, prejudice and stereotyping creates a fear within those subjected to them. They start to think negatively and feel ashamed over something they have no control over.

Many people use a bad experience to judge someone else. In the play the third juror talks about his kid. The third juror said “It's the kids, the way they are nowadays. Angry! Hostile!

Firstly, Rose praises those who demonstrate fairness in their deliberations. Juror 8, the protagonist of the play, is the only member of the jury who initially votes "not guilty." He demonstrates a willingness to examine the evidence presented in the trial and to consider alternative explanations for what happened on the night of the murder. Juror 8's approach is in stark contrast to many of the other jurors, who are quick to dismiss evidence or to rely on their prejudices to make judgments. Rose uses Juror 8's character to show that fairness and impartiality are necessary for a just trial.

Juror #3’s son affected how he saw the facts of the case due to their relationship. Juror #’s son left his father and he sees it as his son's fault. “... When he was fifteen he hit me in the face. … I haven't seen in three years.

Juror #3 is another member of the jury who holds preconceived notions that prevent him from seeing the truth. He is convinced that the defendant is guilty and refuses to consider any evidence that suggests otherwise. When one of the other jurors suggests that the defendant might be innocent, Juror #3 responds with anger, accusing him of being biased in favor of "those people. " He cannot separate his own prejudices from the facts of the case, and as a result, he is unable to reach a fair

Juror Three is an angry, frustrated and a small minded person that wants this kid to be punished for the sole reason that 3’s own kid beat him and ran away, so three is a very hateful person to the kid on trial even though he doesn’t even know him. The vote is 11-1 in favor of not guilty, three is the only juror to vote not guilty, and he is persistent with the facts that the other jurors have proved could be false, so in a rant he yells at the jurors that they are wrong and the kid is guilty, until eight says something that makes him change in an instant. Juror Three states, “That goddamn rotten kid. I know him. What they're like.

He was to all the other jurors and full of doubt to the evidence of the boy. Juror three clearly understood all the evidence given but I doubt that he took the time to think about it in the boys shoes or if that’s not really what happened. He doubted the boy severely, he didn’t sit down and think about what could happen to the boy's

Angry!’ Juror 3 yells and screams about his personal opinions preventing the jurors from thinking e=clearly, as their thoughts worsen in the hot environment. This effect prevents the jurors from deciding whether the kid isn’t guilty with ethical assumptions. Juror 3 has to be pressured by all the facts and other juror for him to realise the kid is not guilty. Family complications affect juror 3’s opinions therefore also affecting the other jurors.

because the defendant reminds him of his son (Rose 21). In the courtroom, Juror 3’s resentment towards his son and their troublesome relationship is put on full display. Because of Juror 3’s projection of his negative stereotypes of teenagers, he stubbornly pushes the others to vote the defendant guilty. Through Juror 3, Rose attempts to show how negative past

One weakness in the justice system is the prejudices and biases of some of the jurors. Juror 3’s anger towards his son makes him biased against the defendant so he tries to block out the possibility of the defendant being innocent. We see this in the play when the text states “I haven't seen him in three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids!

Juror 3 explains to the other jurors, “I’ve got a kid… I haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids!” (Rose 21).

Deeper into the play Juror Three is enraged because the defendant killed his dad and he personally related. Deep down Juror Three wanted the defendant to be convicted as guilty due to how Juror Three felt about the falling out with his son; he wanted his son to pay for leaving. Juror Three held this grudge until the end of the drama where Juror Eight states, “It’s not your boy. He’s somebody else.” (Rose, pg 74).

They think this is going to be a slam dunk of a case and that this child is guilty plain and simple. That is all except for Juror number eight. He's the only supporting in favor of the young man that is on trial. After the second vote do we then see that Juror number nine follows the not guilty vote. He along with Juror number eight are convinced that something does not add up and that this young

The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar

The third juror continually mentions how kids are not respectful and how some are just “rotten,” he also is immediate in his “guilty” verdict from the beginning. His disposition towards “bad kids” appears to leak into his decision making, as he attempts to state and agree with every point that can be used to treat the defendant as guilty. The juror is one of the few that are determined on a guilty verdict for the accused and is the last juror to hold this stance until the end of the story. His prejudice against the defendant from his own experiences with his kid is called out in the final scene of the play. Juror three goes on a rant about how he is the “only one who sees” that the kid and all other kids are the same and rotten; where he is only stopped when juror eight says, “It’s not your boy.