Analysis of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men :: 12 Angry Men, Reginald Rose

In all criminal cases presented in the courts of the United States, a suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The law requires the control board to release the defendant unless it is fully convinced of the defendants guilt. Many clock times it whitethorn be difficult for a board to come to such a significant conclusion. This is clearly evident in the movie 12 uncivilised Men. At first, each juror is convinced of his verdict except one. and of those who are convinced that the boy on trial is guilty, all stir their vote except one. A precise example of this would be a comparison between jurywoman 3 and Juror 6. Both jurors fall in heard the same case and keep back studied the same evidence. notwithstanding of the two, Juror 3 does not understand wherefore anyone would consider the defendant not guilty. By taking a closer look at this character one may be able to understand why he seems to have no compassion towards the young boy. At first, Juror 3 appears to be a successful businessman who owns a messenger service. Yet as time goes on, one may see him as a sour and unhappy man. He wants to base the case altogether on the evidence presented at the trial. Throughout the meeting in the jury room, Juror 3 disregards all other evidence brought up by Juror 8 and the others. He says that the evidence revealed may not be accurate or true. Therefore, it should not be taken into consideration. As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate and seems to be somehow personally involved with the case. At one point, he tells the other jurors near an argument between him and his son. Juror 3 and his son had an argument which make his son run away. When his son returned to apologize, Juror 3 hit him for divergence the first time thus leading him to run away at a time more. He has not seen his son in two years and this has leave him somewhat bitter inside. His anger toward his supposed ungrateful son is communicate toward the young man on trial. Juror 3 has no patronage for the life of the defendant. He makes it clear that he would have been an executioner and would have pulled the switch on the boy himself. His personal troubles have imposed on his ability to come to a verdict.