Juror 4 And Juror 5 example essay topic

In Twelve Angry Men, the audience gets to view the two sides of the legal system. We view the institution that would want to be objective, and the human element, the jury, where each individual brings his own personal subjective point of view. This movie exposes the different types of people called to judge ones peers and the complexity of human nature and what different circumstances influence a juror's thought process. This review will focus on Juror #4, the wealthy stock broker, and Juror #5, a man raised in the slums; two men from completely different worlds placed together side-by-side to determine a young boy's fate. The jury of Twelve Angry Men is entrusted with the power to send a poor boy with an immigrant background to the electric chair for killing his father with a switchblade knife. These men are locked in a small, claustrophobic room on a stifling hot summer day until they come up with a unanimous decision - guilty or not guilty.

Each juror brings his personal issues and perspectives to the table; the prejudices, biases and weaknesses, anger and indifference, ignorance and fears and the cultural differences that affect their decision making process. Juror #4 and Juror #5 come from completely different backgrounds, but they both start out by distancing themselves from the world that the boy lives in. Only when the deliberations finally hit each man personally, does it bring out their deep seated issues to the surface. As Juror #5's confidence in himself and his status grow through the proceedings, Juror #4 must be called to question his confidence and strip away the outer veil that hides his true nature. Juror #8 is the facilitator, the man able to bring these issues to the surface. Juror #4, portrayed by e.g. Marshall, is a confident, well-dressed stockbroker, presumable very wealthy.

He is distant and only speaks to the group when specifically necessary to support his position. At times he comes off as smug and conceited, or studious and methodical. This makes it appear as if he doesn't really care about the fate of the boy. It's more like a murder mystery and he's Sherlock Holmes recalling the facts of the case in great detail; a puzzle to be deductively solved rather than as a case that may send the boy defendant to the electric chair. He also claims that he never sweats, but that remains to be seen. Juror #5 is a contrast in confidence.

As brought to the screen by Jack Klug man, Juror #5 is man formerly from the slums. We really don't his line of work, or even if he has a job. He is na " ive and insecure. He is naturally reserved and frightened, and perhaps feeling a bit guilty about his own life and where he came from. Juror #4 is a member of the first group of six to raise his hand for a guilty vote.

Juror #4 feels very sure of himself and is very comfortable presenting detailed facts of the case supporting his position. Juror #5 is one of the final five to join in the first vote of guilty, most likely as a result of peer pressure. By voting guilty, it may also be a means to distance himself from his past rather than a true belief in the guilt of the boy. During the round-the-table discussion to explain each juror's initial vote, Juror #4 confidently states that the boy's entire alibi was 'flimsy.

' He didn't believe the boys claim that he was at the movies at the time of the killing, yet one hour later when speaking with the investigating officer, he couldn't remember the names of the films he saw or who played in them. And no one saw him going in or out of the theatre. Juror #4 is distancing himself from the boy and the world he lives in. He is looking the situation in way that used logic to act as a cover for his prejudices. Because of his methodical thought process and intelligence he is better able to cover up his biases with the fact patters, rather than the emotion, hate and contempt shown by the other hold outs to the not-guilty verdict. In contrast with Juror #3 and Juror #10 who wear their emotions, biases and intolerance on their sleeves, verbally segregate the world into 'us' and 'them', Juror #4 does it by his logic and detached attitude.

In contrast to Juror #4's positive view of the facts during the round table, Juror #5 elects to pass. Perhaps because the situation elicits too many feelings about his past for him to express, in conjunction with his embarrassment to reveal that the slums are a part of his upbringing. Juror #5 has deep seated feelings for the boy's situation. He's just too shy or embarrassed to reveal those feelings. However, this perspective quickly changes.

As Juror #7 is explaining his position during the initial round-the-table, Juror #4 chimes in by citing studies that show how slum conditions breed criminals. "He's a product of a broken home and a filthy neighborhood. We can't help that. We " re here to decide whether he's innocent or guilty... Children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society". He is specifically saying that a slum background is a factor in determining guilt, without really acknowledging his prejudice.

Juror #4 is not applying the facts of the incident to a determination of guilt. He's applying the facts of the boy's life situation to his determination of guilt. Juror #4's comments, along with #7 and #10, riles up Juror #5. He becomes very uneasy and finally defends himself and speaks up. "I've lived in a slum all my life... I've played in backyards that were filled with garbage.

Maybe you can still smell it on me?" This confrontation brings out his deep seated feelings and memories of his childhood, and starts his process toward an acceptance of his life and how that may impact the boy he is held to judge today. He will be turned more quickly than Juror #4 because of this connection. It's a moment that the gentlemen of the jury actually take notice of Juror #5. It is during the time that the jury is discussing the credibility of the testimony of the Old Man and the Old Woman that Juror #5 changes his vote to not guilty. Obviously, it is again Juror #4 who characteristically recounts the details of the testimony of the Old Woman who "looked right in the open window and saw the boy stab his father" and "saw the killing through the windows of a moving elevated train".

Interestingly, it is Juror #9, the old man, who has a great eye for detail this time. He is the juror that noticed the old man's torn jacket and the way he walked, dragging his leg, trying to hide it because he was ashamed. Juror #9 speculates that "this was a quite, frightened, insignificant old man who has never made a difference."Now this... old man... needs to be listened to". This is a very striking description of some key characteristics of Juror #5 (from the slums, feeling frightened and insignificant) and what has happened to him just previously (acceptance and people listen to him). Add these facts to Juror #8 reminding everyone of the phrase "I'm gonna kill you", words Juror #5 heard often in his youth, the situation is hitting very close to home.

The combination of needing to be listened to and finally being heard, an acceptance of his past and a newly flamed desire to stand up to prejudice puts him on the road to overcoming his fears, to stand on his own and to change his vote to not guilty. It's then interesting to see that Juror #5 becomes an important participant in the proceedings. He embraces his past and puts his knowledge to good use when he demonstrates how to properly use a switchblade knife "underhanded". He admits "Anyone who's ever used a switch knife wouldn't handle it any other way". Juror #4 places great satisfaction in that he has a particular ability to recall facts. He is the juror who related in great detail the time frame and sequence of event related to the boy's fight with his father, the purchase of the unusual knife, the friends identifying the "death weapon", the time the boy says he went to the movie, losing the knife, and returning to find his father dead.

Juror #4 goes on to recreate his own version of the facts to support his position on the night in question. Juror #4's presentation of the facts are actually an effort to "objectively" support his biases and prejudices. He is not using the facts as a method to actually determine guilt or innocence. Even when the small and wimpy bank teller, Juror #2, recalls the name of the movie and the old man recalls the details of the old man's walk, it does not sway Juror #4 to admit reasonable doubt. What is particularly interesting in this regard is that even when Juror #8 provides the concept of the existence of an identical knife by asking him to admit that "It's possible". Juror #4 responds: "But not very probable".

This is the perspective that he comes from in the movie. He's not really looking for reasonable doubt as to the boy's guilt. He will not settle for anything less than a probability that the boy isn't guilty. This is not the standard of judging guilt or innocence which should be applied. Even when the large chart of the old man's apartment is used in combination with Juror #8's demonstration of how long it would take to make it to the door, it does not visibly sway Juror #4. Juror #8 even solicits Juror #4's participation in the experiment and speaks directly to Juror #4 when the experiment is completed as a plea to elicit reasonable doubt in a man who on the surface appears to be concerned with facts and logic.

All this while, Juror #4 has attempted to distance himself on an emotional level from the proceedings. He has not engaged in polite banter with the other jurors. He also has maintained an aloof distance between the boy's situation and the witnesses, and that of his own. Only when the argument turns to the discussion of the boy's 'movie' alibi, do we begin to see a change in how Juror #4 may be looking at the situation. Juror #4 states he could have remembered the names and details of the movies even under pressure, especially after an "upsetting experience such as being slapped in the face by your father". After relentless questioning, Juror #4 can't remember the exact title of the inexpensive second feature and the name of its stars that he saw with his wife three nights earlier.

Contrary to his statement that he never sweats, when the pressure is on him personally and he can not fall back on those very important facts to substantiate his argument, we see him wipe a drop of sweat from his brow with a handkerchief. Juror #8 notices, "And you weren't even under an emotional stress, were you?" The final discussion of the Old Woman's account of the evening and her eyesight, cuts close to home and brings him into the story like it had not before. When the situation finally becomes too personal, it brings out his not guilty vote. The facts he so relied on before have now fallen apart, and when he is personally used as the evidence against a guilty verdict (rubbing his nose and eyeglass marks), he has no choice by logic to continue with the front he has been putting up. "It's logical to assume that no one wears eyeglasses to bed". So it was highly unlikely that the woman could have had time to put on her glasses to see the murder through the el and across the road.

And when the only two remaining hold-outs are obviously bigoted, angry men, he doesn't want to be identified with that either. Juror #4 tells Juror #10, "Now sit down and don't open your mouth again". It's now a personal issue for him. Juror #4 explains the now he agrees with the majority "with a reasonable doubt" after the eyeglasses incident. However, it appears that he had more than just a reasonable doubt.

At that point, it was a probability in his mind that the boy did not commit the murder. His reasonable doubt showed up much earlier, he just couldn't get himself to act upon it yet. Reasonable doubt appeared during their movie title discussion. That incident hit him close to home and made him sweat. Maybe for the first time in his life, he doubted himself, but his conceit would not yet let him change his vote.

He only changed his vote when in his analytical mind he had proof positive the boy was not guilty (the glasses discussion), it touched him way too close to home to refute the evidence, and he realized the underlying bigotry that was influencing his original position.