The deliberations process between the twelve ?angry? men is a long and tedious battle which causes great tension and reveals the professedly characters of each jurywoman. While initially the jurywomans voted eleven to cardinal to con the defendant, common logic and justice prevail to reposition the defendant. The ? study? decide this without any doubts and be amazed that one juror does not conform. This brings about a comprehensive breakd declare of the facts and exposes valet de chambre frailties and the power of ?peer-pressure?.
The events that lead the jurors to alter their opinions and set the defendant free are based around various scenarios. These include the puppylike mans inability to count for where he was on the night in question. The emotional stress of the defendant was provided as reasoning ? it was unacceptable for him to remember the movie title nevertheless no make of guilt.
Secondly, the testimony of the witness (old man) was in question as he had trouble reaching the witness chair due to a stroke. Therefore there was an improbability of reaching the door to bring in the perpetrator escaping the crime as given in evidence.
suspect?s use of switch blade was found to be unlikely ? the proper use of it and its common availability open even though it was claimed unique.
Lastly were the facts discovered through epitome of the witness, namely the woman who probably wore glasses. She was deemed to be of questionable line of battle therefore an improbable witness to the crime due to add up of inconsistencies. These included not having glasses at the time, be a considerable distance away, the darkness and viewing through an annul train carriage.
The characters engage in heated arguments but step by step change their opinions.
Standing alone and with conviction is juror #8, Davis. Davis is shy(p) that the defendant is guilty and believes there?s reasonable doubt. He refuses to send the male child to die without discussion. Davis is a sceptic, weighing the facts up. He believes that there are inconsistencies in the evidence.
There develops a contestation between him and juryman #4 who is equally analytical but lacks emotion and integrity shown by Davis. Juror #4 believes that the boy?s alibi of being at the movies was flimsy and ?slums are breeding grounds for criminals?. He states that they are ?potential menaces to troupe?. He believes the defendant should be able to recount the teaching about the movie that he could not recall.
Juror #7 shows disinterest and an eagerness to finish the case quickly so he can attend his baseball game. Throughout the put down he?s arrogant and rude making ill-scented wisecracks. He bases his original vote on the defendant?s tainted history and previous criminal offences. He?s a racist and this is evident through his interaction with immigrantJuror #11. The immigrant juror has integrity and believes that ?one should stick up for what they believe is right.
?Juror #3 has a volatile personality he?s a powerful influential businessman he becomes nettle by the events that Davis has initiated. Juror #3?s arguments although substantiated initially were afterward fractured because facts which he assumed didn?t quite add up. He is disillusioned with youth and his animosity to the defendant is a reproof of his ruined relationship with his estranged son. He is accused of being a ?self appointed public avenger? by Davis.
The events that lead the jurors to change their minds and set the defendant free are led initially by Davis. He provides a building block for further analysis of the case and reinforces throughout the bourgeon the concept of ?reasonable doubt?. Davis provides a reenactment of the crime and the explains the witnesses account of it. He finds many flaws and inaccuracies and having presented these to his fellow jurors one by one they fall like flies. Gradually through the additional constitute information provided by fellow jurors mainly McCradle they become win over of the defendants innocence. The previously mentioned events led to these jurors changing their minds.
The last to succumb is Juror #3 who breaks down claiming ?rotten kids you work all your living?? He finally realizes that his bias towards the defendant is due to his own deep personal grudge. This final resolution shows that justice is served!
If you pauperism to get a full essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.comIf you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment