Each character also represents values and personal growth that we already have or hope to achieve.Tags: Essay About Sonnet 18 By William ShakespeareOnline Courses In Creative WritingEssay Writing For Canadian Students 6th EditionThe Giver Essay TopicsAccounting Homework Answers FreeResearch Proposal Latex TemplateSample Of A Literature Review In A Research PaperWrite An Essay OnRick Morneau Essays
When a boy from the slums is accused of killing his father, it's no surprise when the all-white jury initially votes "guilty" – all, that is, except Juror 8. After all, isn't a lawyer essentially the architect of a case? If found guilty, the suspect will face the death penalty – a harsh fate for any man, but especially so for an 18-year-old boy.
It's a booming, busy city, but also one full of rampant racism and poverty. His skill for designing a building – imagining how the pieces of a building could fit together, and how having just one piece askew could send the whole structure tumbling to the ground – seems to help him see how poorly designed the prosecution’s case is. More so than his fellow jurors, Juror 8 is interested in making sure the case is resolved on the basis of reason and not strong emotions. convincing his fellow jurors that the defendant is not guilty, or at least that there's reasonable doubt.
Juror #8's popularity ranking on Charac Tour is #2273 out of 5,300 characters.
See our top-ranked characters and read their profiles.
Lastly, all of these jurors demonstrated citizenship by serving the country in becoming jurors for this trial.
Even Juror #2 was quite excited to be a member of the jury and be a part in the legal and judicial system.
Twelve jurors have individual stands and differences that may have been affected by their experiences and upbringing.
Every person in the movie represents current ethical and moral dilemmas that plague even individuals of today.
Several jurors changed their votes accordingly and gained the courage to do the right thing.
In spite of their previous stand, they swallowed their prides and changed their votes, not because of their personal beliefs but because of what were the doubts in the evidences presented. These jurors tolerated other’s differences and attitudes as far as they could, carried out with good manners and proper language, dealt with disagreements and other’s brash behavior with forbearance and respect. These jurors persevered for what they knew was right, proved the innocence of a kid and persuaded those that are set in their votes; convinced them with facts and not by prejudices.