Friday, February 27, 2015
Lauren Ahn 3B
The different backgrounds among the jurors causes different tones. But the respect from one juror to another also comes from their backgrounds. All the jurors came from different households and have different lifestyles which causes their opinions to differ and makes all their personalities clash. When their opinions and personalities clashed they became opinionated and didn't want to hear what anyone else had to say even if they made a point. The jurors being opinionated then makes them not respect each other . The really only way they would respect each other is if one agreed with the others opinion. Te respect didn't come from the tone or language. It was all perspective.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I totally agree that because the jurors came from such different backgrounds that they ended up clashing so much. There different ways of life lead them to have different perspectives
ReplyDeleteI agree that the jurors often clashed because of their numerous different backgrounds. Their opinions differed greatly from one another, and while that sometimes led them to fight, it was also the cause of key factors that were brought up during the trial, points that may not have been brought up if the Jurors had all been of similar backgrounds. Because the jury came from different backgrounds they were able to put their past experiences together to create enough reasonable doubt to declare him not guilty.
ReplyDeleteHi Lauren,
ReplyDeleteNice post - it was very straight forward. I agree that coalitions, or alliances, can work for or against people in certain situations. People often build alliances on game shows, or even sports teams. This is appropriate due to the fact that it only involves someone getting kicked off of a team, and not receiving the death penalty.
As we read in Twelve Angry Men, It was evident that Juror three and Juror four used their votes ‘guilty’ to build a coalition. This would be inappropriate and irresponsible to do during a court case since the defendant’s life is at stake. According to juror four, “There are six men here who think that we may be turning a murdered loose in the streets. Emotion won’t do” (Rose 46). While juror three stated, “You can’t convince me that there’s a doubt, because I know there isn’t no doubt” (Rose 47). The way that juror three and four built a pact by sharing their opinions, rather than facts about the case, effected their votes, along with the other juror’s votes. (Their votes were often swayed)
A real life example of this would be how your friend is having a bad day, you begin to pick up on his or her behavior, and as a result, you begin to have a bad day too. The play, Twelve Angry Men, showed how coalitions may work against you, especially in court cases, since all of the jurors ended up voting ‘not guilty'.
Again, nice post!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you Lauren in the play The Twelve Angry Men (key word angry) there was a lot of fighting going on in this play because they were such different people from different backgrounds. There wasn't a whole lot of respect for one another. For example juror 2 says to juror 8 "I'm gonna kill you" Definitely not agreeing and respect for one another. The respect came from tone and language though that's how they communicated with one another the tone and language is a big thing in the play that's were a lot of the agruement came from ,but also the way they see it.
ReplyDeleteI agree because many of these jurors all had their separate intake because of their past history. I feel that this was a major factor for why they had such conflict with each other. This also helped figure out if the boy was innocent or not because all of these different ideas and view points came together to form a final conclusion.
ReplyDeleteI agree because many of these jurors all had their separate intake because of their past history. I feel that this was a major factor for why they had such conflict with each other. This also helped figure out if the boy was innocent or not because all of these different ideas and view points came together to form a final conclusion.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that there was a lot of tension between the jurors because of how different they are. This is why it took a long time to figure out if the boy was guilty because they all had different opinions and views about everything.
ReplyDelete