Logical arguments can alter opinions, but in this case it can change lives. Ethical and pathetic arguments are both crucial in gaining attention, but the real power to create change lies with logical arguments. In order to get the most out of each argument, they must work together to achieve the same goal. In the drama Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, Juror #8 utilizes rhetoric appeals to provide justice and prove the defendant is not guilty of a crime. Juror #8 initially proves that he is credible to add depth into his logical and pathetic arguments and establish trust with the other jurors. For instance, Juror #8 ignites the idea of having a secret ballot to determine where the jurors stand. The idea of the vote brings unity and order to the group, while naturally establishing Juror #8 as the leader. He uses this elevated position to make persuasive arguments. Gaining the attention of the room was the first step in making his rhetoric appeals and defending his not guilty vote. …show more content…
Juror #8 states, “I just want to talk for a while. Look, this boy’s been kicked around all his life. You know, living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. That’s not a good head start.”(page 5). He is trying to convince the jurors to explore different perspectives rather than making assumptions about the boy being a rotten kid because of where he is from. Coming from a different approach inspires the other jurors to actually dig into the case rather than just brushing over it. Juror #8 declaring that he just wants to talk leads into the discussion for the rest of the play. He benefits from this open discussion by generating a lane to pitch logical appeals that prove the boy is not
In Twelve Angry Men, the award winning three act drama written by Reginald Rose, each juror is told to reconsider a reasonable doubt in deciding the fate of a young man accused of murdering his own father. With little exception, each juror bring his own personal biases and preconceptions. However, in this rollercoaster of a drama, no other juror stands out as much as Juror Three. Though other jurors may occasionally admit a reasonable doubt, Juror Three is strictly motivated by his superiority complex, impatience, and personal grudges. Juror Three often believes his opinions matter more than others and only appreciates those who agree with him.
In the play juror 8 is the only one to vote not guilty in the start. He prevented the defendant from being sent to death without looking into the case and talking about it. If there was just the judge she could’ve sent him away for a death sentence or let him go, but it would be only her to choose which isn’t all that fair. The jury opens up the possibilities of different outlooks on the case. It makes the jurors really think about what the defendant is and what can support
13) In a journal, explain what you think the themes of the play are - in other words, what lessons can the play teach us about ourselves, our lives, our society, our justice system, etc. In Twelve Angry Men, there are several crucial themes that correlate to our real lives. Foremostly, race was a substantially evident theme in the play. Specifically Juror Ten, he would innovate prejudiced reflections against the defendant who grew up in the slums such as claiming that “‘They breed like animals.
12 Angry Men" focuses on a jury 's deliberations in a capital murder case. A 12-man jury is sent to begin deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old man accused in the stabbing death of his father, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. The case appears to be open-and-shut: The defendant has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have lost is found at the murder scene; and several witnesses either heard screaming, saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene. Eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty; only Juror No. 8 (Mr. Davis) casts a not guilty vote. At first Mr. Davis bases his vote more so for the sake of discussion; after all, the jurors must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
12 Angry Men Jury Attitude Development The Juror's attitudes in “Twelve Angry Men” changes from Act one to Act three by caring more about the outcome of the case and less about going home. In the beginning, all of the jurors, save but one, Juror eight, voted guilty without ever caring about if the evidence presented was factual. Peer pressure seemed to be a large portion of this, seeing that a few of the jurors raised their hands hesitantly when asked to publicly vote for guilty. Juror seven voiced how he felt about this case, saying that the decision “better be [made] fast,” simply because he “got tickets to the Seven Year Itch.”
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
In the beginning of the play, all of the men agreed that the boy was guilty except for Juror #8. Since Juror #8 was the oddball from the group of twelve, the other jurors got along in an attempt to get Juror #8 to change his mind: “Three: Do you really believe he’s not guilty? Eight: I don't know. Seven: After six days, he doesn't know. Twelve:
Do What Is Right, Not What Is Easy In the 1957 MGM film Twelve Angry Men, juror’s number 8 and 9 were the two most effective leaders. Juror number 8 stands out the most out of the 12 jurors; he is a leader and a hard worker because he refuses to give up until the other jurors face the truth. Juror number 9 is the second-in-command when it comes to justice and sympathy.
8th juror appeals to their sense of pathos and pity by saying “this boy’s been kicked around all his life… He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.” While this has nothing to do with the case, he hopes to appeal to their humanity in order to get them to give him a chance in these deliberations.
Reasonable doubt proves that critical thinking is important when someone’s life is in someone else’s hands. “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, is a play about twelve jury members who must deliberate and decide the fate of a man who is accused of murdering his father. These twelve men must unanimously agree on whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty without reasonable doubt. Just like the jurors, the readers of this play have not witnessed the crime that took place before the trial started. Everyone, but the writer, is in the dark about who committed the crime.
Juror eight is a highly intelligent and logical person. In the start of the play, Juror eight is the only Juror to vote “not guilty” towards to trial. With his caring attitude towards the young boy in trial, he states that “I’m not
‘Twelve Angry Men’ written by Reginald Rose, is based on the story of a jury who have to come together to determine the fate of a young boy accused to have murdered his own father. Initially, eleven of the jurors vote not guilty with one of the juror being uncertain of the evidence put before them. As the men argue over the different pieces of evidence, the insanity begins to make sense and the decision becomes clearer as they vote several other times. Rose creates drama and tension in the jury room, clearly exploring through the many issues of prejudice, integrity and compassion, in gaining true justice towards the accused victim. These aspects have been revealed through three character who are Juror 10, Juror 8 and Juror 3.
Guilty Or Not? In the film, 12 Angry Men, an 18-year boy was accused of murdering his father. 12 Angry men come to together in one room for ninety minutes to come to an agreement. While this is happening emotions, racial slurs, and apathy are bouncing off the walls.
In 12 Angry Men, the author creates a very long and challenging process for the jurors to decide on an unanimous verdict. At the beginning of the play, Juror Eight is the only one that votes for not guilty. Because he does not know what he thinks, he asks that they review all the facts and testimonies. When Juror Eight
Persuasion is the key to success. However, to achieve the best outcome, many things play a role, some of which include logos, ethos and pathos. In the book Twelve Angry Men, jurors brought their ideas to the table through different perspectives. Having facts and evidence shows that you know what you talking about, and have looked further into the topic. The best persuasive appeal presented in Twelve Angry Men was logic.