Juror Three example essay topic

12 Angry Men Essay Juror#3 In a crowded jury room in downtown New York, opinions collide as discussion about the innocence of a young boy is decided. The dark and foreboding storm clouds that hang over the heads of the jurors are beginning to lift as time progresses and new facts are presented. One juror is not happy about this stay of execution and is holding fast his opinion of guilty. Juror three, the president of his business, refuses to alter his vote or opinion in any way. Still haunted by his own son, juror three verbally assaults the group with a forceful tone and a taciturn attitude.

One of twelve, Reginald Rose created them all from the same pen and ink, and they could all be no more different. Juror three is angry, bitter man who has spent his entire life forcing his opinions unto others, and has most likely succeeded in this endeavor. As head of his own company, he isn't he used to the resistance he is getting from the group. To help his arguments, he uses the phrase "know what I mean" at the end of almost everything he says, putting any juror with an opposing argument in an awkward position. As the play wears on and his reliable witnesses were called into question, and more speculation was put upon the table, he begins to become more forceful in his arguments, raising his voice much more often than usual.

He firmly believes in the guilt of the accused, no matter what the other jurors say or do. There are other things influencing his opinion other than stubbornness however. Juror three has a son. He treated his son much like the way the accused's father treated the accused.

He comes right out and says that he was. ".. going to make a man out of him, or bust him in half trying". In the end, juror three's son struck him across the face, beating his father back for the first time. Juror three states that he "hasn't seen his son in two years", which implies that his son fled after striking his father... The accused however did not just beat back at his father. The accused supposedly murdered him.

When juror three's son fled home after besting his father, something that has most likely never happened to juror three, juror three was never able to take his revenge on his son. Seeing his chance, he is firmly set on this boys guilt, seeing his own son's guilt in the accused. But it does not stop there. Throughout the play, juror three interrupts others in mid-sentence and attacks their opinions hoping to quash them quickly before they pollute his own flawless opinion and doubt has a chance to creep into the dark crevices of his mind. For instance, when juror eight surprises the group with a second knife, juror three is already angry, too angry. His voice rises and shakes with an animal-like ferocity.

"You pulled a real bright trick here. Now supposing you tell us what you proved here. Maybe there are ten knives like that one. So what?" Not thinking that this put a dent in his case, juror eights brains have overcome the emotions of juror three. With a very short temper to go along with his all-powerful attitude, juror three is not a nice person. Already he has threatened death towards one of the other jurors and would have made good the threat had it not been for the decisive actions of the other jurors who jumped up to hold him back...

An acrimonious and blind-sighted executioner, juror #3 is one of many that an innocent victim would not want to decide their fate. Unfortunately, democracy does not only apply to the fair and just, and undoubtedly innocent men and women have fallen prey to the unwavering wrath of men and women just like juror three who are too subjective to see the truth. All is not lost however. There may be millions out there like juror three, but there are still people out there with good intentions and clarity of mind that can see through the narrow rage of the juror threes of the world. Everyday, a man goes on trial, sometimes for his life. His judgement should come from the clear mind and not the clouded heart.