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 defendant is presumed innocent until proven disgraced beyond reasonable doubt. The law requires the jury to release the defendant unless it is fully convinced of the defendants guilt. Many times it may be difficult for a jury to come to such a significant conclusion. This is clearly evident in the movie 12 Angry Men. At first, each juror is convinced of his verdict except one. barely of those who are convinced that the boy on trial is guilty, all change their vote except one. A precise example of this would be a comparison between Juror 3 and Juror 6. Both jurors have heard the same case and have studied the same evidence. Yet of the two, Juror 3 does not understand why anyone would consider the defendant not guilty. By taking a closer look at this causa 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 me ssenger service. Yet as time goes on, one may see him as a sour and upset man. He wants to base the case solely on the evidence presented at the trial. Throughout the meeting in the jury room, Juror 3 disregards all former(a) evidence brought up by Juror 8 and the former(a)s. He says that the evidence revealed may not be accurate or true. Therefore, it should not be interpreted 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 about an argument between him and his son. Juror 3 and his son had an argument which made his son run away. When his son returned to apologize, Juror 3 hit him for release the first time thus leading him to run away once more. He has not seen his son in two years and this has left him roughly bitter inside. His anger toward his supposed ungrateful son is projected toward the young man on trial. Juror 3 has no concern for the life of the d efendant. 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.