In the beginning of the play Twelve Angry Men, Juror
8 stood up for his opinion of the defendant even though he was the only one
that believed that the defendant wasn’t guilty. Throughout the entire play
juror eight wielded a lot of influence in swaying the other jurors onto his
side because he backed up his opinion with facts. Juror eight combined both
skill and determination to prove to his peers that sometimes things aren’t always
as they seem. Because he was patient and took the time to walk everyone through
all the different scenarios, he was able to turn almost everyone’s opinion
around. On the other hand juror number three remained adamant through the
entire play about opposing everything juror eight said. Juror number three was definitely
determined to prove juror 8 wrong. But
the difference between the two men is that juror eight was able to prove his
points by backing them up with evidence and juror three never did.
I agree on that juror three was against everything that juror 8 said, but juror three did have some evidence. Juror Eight: The old man said that he heard the kid say " I'm gonna kill you".
ReplyDeleteJuror Three: he didn't say he heard the kid "say" it. He said he heard him scream it".
I also agree he could have said nothing but he didn't he stood up for what he believed which is important. I believe because of him that's why the jurors changed there vote from guilty to not guilty because he influenced them. He plays a key role.
ReplyDeleteI agree that juror 8 had a lot of influence on the rest of the jurors. In the play, juror 8 was very thoughtful and determined with what he was saying. During the play, the other jurors changed their votes multiple times, swaying back and forth. Without juror 8 and his determination to find the verdict, then the defendant probably would've been found guilty.
ReplyDelete