12 Angry Men is a film about 12 jurors who were selected on a murder case about an eighteen year who stabbed his father. During the film we are introduced to those jurors. I will be discussing the two jurors who I feel represented their discussions well and two who did not. My first selection on good jurors would be Juror #9, the retired man. He is a sensible man and fights for what he believe in. He claims that he wishes he were more courageous as a young adult. During the first discussion with juror #10, there was talk about the kids upbringing and how they are born liars. Then juror #10 would step in to tell him about his ignorance on how he could believe that all young people are foolish.
While juror 9 first selected guilty during the first round, he later switched his vote once he knife ordeal came into play. But during the secret ballot, juror 3 had assumed that the non guilty was from juror 5. Juror 9 would once again step up to announce that he was the one who voted not guilty. Juror 9 thought about what Juror 10 had said about wanting to hear more information and give more reasons why the jurors were voting that way. Despite this, it was juror 8 who convinced him that there was not enough evidence to sentence the defendant to death.
The next juror who I believe is a great one is juror #11, The Refugee and Watchmaker. He may seem like a quiet person but thrives to better himself and takes pride in sitting on the jury. Discussing the case, he is the only juror who has taken notes on some points the other jurors were saying.
127 our experts are availableright now
He claims that during the trial, not enough was presented during the trial and that we (the jurors) should be digging more deeper into the case before deciding on a verdict.
His example that is given is that on the surface as a whole, the defendant looks guilty and not enough information was provided during the case. Why would the suspect go home after the killing? Instead of getting a serious response, couple of jurors joke around with he question. Juror 4 responds back saying that is is possible that the boy may have known that the knife may be identified so. Te boy, in a state of panic didn’t realize that he left the knife behind. After hearing the response from juror 4, he continues to challenge juror 4 on the definition of panic along with numerous other questions. Some jurors were not pleased because of him asking questions. Juror 11 is the one I wouldn’t mind having on a jury table. He is smart, takes notes and asks questions to questions that need them. Takes issues seriously and challenges others. My pick for number two, best juror.
My first pick for the worst juror would have to be Juror #7.(Salesman) I feel that juror 7 didn’t have too much remorse on the case. He is obnoxious, self centered and can bully others. His arguments are usually irrelevant. Juror 7 don’t seem like he wishes to even be there and is more concerned about leaving so he can attend the ballgame. He admits during the start the he would do anything to avoid being on a jury. He also makes jokes about any situation no giving any for of seriousness. At one time even whistling the tune of Dance of the Cuckoos. During the middle of the play, the votes turn out to be 6 to 6, he gets distraught when juror #2 says that’s it going to rain, he responds sarcastically and asks him why he changed is vote while juror #2 said that there was room for doubt. Continues to say that many of the details were left out.
Juror #7 doesn’t care for others opinions. He is very selfish and changes his vote only to leave sooner. But not after getting some backlash. He realizes his errors and submits to changing his vote on valid arguments that were given to him. Personally, not a juror I’d like to have because of his persona.
