What are your juror's one or two dominant characteristics that guide his decision-making process? In other words, which characteristic(s) best explain(s) how your juror behaves and votes? Cite support for your ideas!
The 12th juror is not really sophisticated. You would expect from a man who works in advertising to be convincing, but this guy dose not even have a real personal opinion. He would easily change his mind, but only after he would hear a reasonable and logical explanation.
The 10th juror is a very prejudiced man. We can see all throughout the play that he reffers to the kid as one of "those people" and especially in the speech he gives at the end in which he talks about how obvios it is that the boy is guilty, and curses at everyone for not getting the support he thinks he should get. Eventualy, he changes his vote to "not guilty" out of frustration and decides he doesn't care what they decide.
Yes, Ido, we noticed this about him. But on the last day, we noticed something else about this juror, about what drives his prejudice. Read through his final speeches again and see what you notice.
the third juror is an excitable old fashioned man. we see him constantly cling to the past,back when "kids used to calls their fathers sir..." and shout out about every single point the 8th juror makes. he is stubborn tough and agressive, all things that come with his excitable old fashion personality and is the last one to change his vote.
Yes, I know what you mean. But he also seems to be a very sensitive, emotional man, no? In the end, we see how his vote was based on the hurt and anger he feels about his son. No?
The 4th juror is a very logical person. He only looks for the facts, and bases his opinion on them, without much emotion involved. When many others either turn to their emotions, or are being passive, the 4th juror never fails to present an argument based on logical facts. When the last of his arguments gets shut down, and he realizes that the opposing arguments are logical, he doesn't stay stubborn, and changes his vote.
The 10th juror is a fearful man. We might assume he is just prejudice or bias but in his monologue in the end we can see he claims that the boy is guilty because he is one of the "drunk", "dangerous" and "violent" people. Still, he votes "not guilty" at last because he is tired of people not listening to him. He feels defeated, so he just gives up on fighting against the other jurors and finishes the whole thing.
Right, Shir, in the end, we definitely see that fear drives his prejudice (or, maybe, is just an excuse?). (By the way, the adjective is "prejudiced" and "biased": juror 10 is prejudiced and biased.) It is interesting to question, generally, what lies behind racial or religious prejudice. I wonder about how, in the end, he gives up and votes 'not guilty". I am not sure what exactly is happening to him there. Has he, from his violent outburst and the other jurors' reactions, recognized the ugliness of his prejudice, or at least realized that his prejudice is not enough to find the boy "guilty"?
The 9th juror is an old man, who is trying to stay objective in the argument. He remembers all the facts and details from the testimony, in order to be able to be right and based in his complaint. Also he does that in order to know what claim is based on facts or not. We can see that at the beginning of the play. When the 8th juror suggest that the boy isn’t guilty and stands alone against everyone, The 9th juror realize that maybe there is something he missed and helps the 8th juror being heard. The 9th juror is open minded and he understand that there always a different way of understanding things. Yaara
Nice, Yaara. Yes, this juror is open-minded. He also seems to take this job seriously, and is ready to take the time necessary to think carefully about the issues.
The 2nd juror at the beginning seems to be very passive and not very involves in the discussion, he says things that are not important (like when they are going to eat dinner), so you cannot understand a lot of details about his characteristics that guide him think in some way (maybe his lack of interest?). But next he was the person who was call the other jurors to calm down when they were yelling at each other (maybe he is brave in some way), and he changes his decision from guilty to not guilty after the 8th juror convinces him, so we can say that he is openminded.
Avigail, the 2nd Juror also initiates the reexamination of the downward movement of the knife. It's true that he's a quiet man (is he shy? a bit insecure? not comfortable with these people? just not a talkative guy?), but it doesn't seem to me that it's out of a lack of interest.
The 12th juror is persuadable, he is not stubborn and is trying to determine right and wrong using facts. He is not a very dominant person, and seems like he gives thought to the discussion but is afraid to step in too much. The 12th juror prefers listening to other people than coming up with his own
I think back towards the beginning, when the 12th juror talks about his being in advertising. The whole group is stuck and he says, "I wish I knew how we could break this up," and then he tells how, at the agency, people throw out ideas, etc. He seems like a good-natured, friendly guy, who likes working with people. He likes being part of a group. Isn't he the only juror, also, who changes his vote twice? So it is not just that he's not dominant: he's easily persuadable.
The 9th juror is an open minded person. He is an old man, who I assume has lots of life experience, yet he respects the 8th juror, his position, and his sense of justice. Also, he doubts his own position. He does not exclude the possibility that he is wrong. The 9th juror is the first one to change his vote to "not guilty" after the 8th juror votes so. He does that not necessarily because he thinks that the boy is not guilty, but because he takes his responsibility seriously (more than others, at least), and he wants to hear more and consider his decision more carefully. The 9th juror also understands people's behavior well. He empathizes with the old man who gave the testimony, and understands what motivates him. After all those years of hearing many statements, he still tries to give everyone - including a boy from a slum - a fair opportunity to be judged.
You raise some really nice ideas here, Shir. That scene where he empathizes with the older witness made me first notice the 9th juror's imagination, his ability and willingness to fully imagine another's situation. Don't forget that, at the end of the play, the 9th juror is the one who also remembers and considers the eye-glass marks on the other witness's nose. Here, too, we see his diligence as a juror, how careful he is to think everything through. But then, look at how he understands and explains to the others why that woman might have removed her glasses before coming into court. Again, we see his imagination and ability to consider different people's motives and behavior.
The foreman is a quiet and peaceful person, and he also wants everything to be neat and organized. He feels responsible to calm the other jurors when they arguing and he does this very nice and gently, like in this sample from the text: "All right, gentleman. Let's take our seats." The foreman is a calm, sympathy and little bit shy person, things that we can see throw out the text.
The 7th juror is not an intelligent man. He is not trying to think about the case by himself. at the beginning he chose his decision just for leaving early and arriving to the ball game. After that he have not said any new information or thought . Even when he changed his mind he did not explain why.
The 2th juror is a quiet character. He does not need to be apart of conversation to make a decision, he just needs to listen. The 2th juror changes his call for "not guilty" after a big conversation of the jurors. In the conversation a doubt about the evidence in the trail came out. He tries to make the right call, and a reasonable doubt is enough for his to votes "not guilty". - Mia
The 8th Juror is motivied by his decision to give each case he gets a fair trial. He treats his place as a Juror very seriously and takes the responsebility it demands. We can see that he declares it as hes purpose right from the beginnig of the play, and stay loyal to it until they get the decision. The 8th Juror is an active thinker, he doubt the different facts of the case and not once prove that they werent all correct. By his active thinking he finally get to change the whole jury's vote. Yelly:)
The 11th juror is a calculated and quiet character. He listens to the others while they are arguing and takes notes so he will make the wise choice based on the avidens and ideas of the others.In the conversation my juror allmost never interferes only when he has somthing important to say or an idea he thinks that needs to raise to discuss about. In the first vote he voted "guilty" after a few arguments he voted "not guilty"-Noa Kopel
Juror number one (the Foreman) is a quiet man. He does not talk a lot, and when he does he tries to shorten in his words as much as he can and doesn't disclose his personal opinion. From the beginning of the play it seems like he is the Foreman's job reluctantly. Even if the jury gets noisy, he waits until it gets out of control and only than he will quite them. Even then, he will not say more than a sentence like "Let's keep it down here", or "let's vote for this". There are two times he speaks for himself in the play. In the first time, he tells that he's a football and a principal in a high-school. We can also notice that he speaks incorrectly sometimes ("we’re just startin’ to move the ball, off tackle, y’know. Boom! Boom!" for example). The second time he speaks he reminds the jury of what the psychiatrist said (that the kid doe have murders intentions) and the jury , and mostly juror number 3 reject him. I think the Foreman is insecure, not passive, although he does not say his opinion actively, so I can't really know what guided his decision making. He votes guilty almost every vote, but in the last vote he changes his mind and votes not guilty. I can guess that what he said about the psychiatrist is not in favor of the boy, so he thinks he is guilty. Only after the jury rejects it he changes his mind.
The 3rd juror is a violent and excitable person. He speaks a lot and he demands respect and decision making from the other Jurors. He isn't very logical and mostly he's tongue is guided more by his emptions then he's mind. The experience of raising he's own child made him angry and bitter when it comes to the subject of kids. This anger for children made him a very subjective juror and it seems his own ego blocks him(sometimes) from reciving and listening to the claims and thoughts of others. He was the last juror to change vote from "guilty" to "not guilty" and it only was after the jurors told him "he's not your child. let him live". Omer fridman
The 10th juror is one of the opposers in the trial. Very quickly we can see he's racist, and how much hate is in his speeches. He's a smart man that can manage small business, but he feels that he wastes his time in the court. Because of his brutal language the other jurors prefer not to listen to him, and by that he starts to feel unheared. This feeling makes him frustrated, and in his final speech we finally understand that his racism comes from real fear. At the end he votes "not guilty" although he thinks the boy murdered his father.
The 8th juror is open-minded and fair. From the beginning, unlike a lot of different jurors, he was willing to discuss the case and evidence even though it seemed like an 'open-and-shut case'. Although he wasn't sure the boy was innocent, he still gave him a fair chance and stood up for him against other jurors. He only looked at the facts and didn't let his personal bias or prejudice get in the way of his decision making and was able to stay calm throughout the whole time. He brought up different scenarios that could have happened, used logic and reason to persuade the others and acted overall fairly and open-mindedly the whole time they were deliberating.
The 7th juror is very impaitient and close-minded. All he thinks about is the ball game he is missing and ball games in genral. He is sure that no one will change his mind from guilty to not guilty he mentioned that the 8th juror can talk for handred years and won't change his mind. At the end he did suprise and changed his vote.
The 12th juror is not really sophisticated. You would expect from a man who works in advertising to be convincing, but this guy dose not even have a real personal opinion. He would easily change his mind, but only after he would hear a reasonable and logical explanation.
ReplyDeleteGood points, Rotem. So would you say that he is easily influenced?
DeleteThe 10th juror is a very prejudiced man. We can see all throughout the play that he reffers to the kid as one of "those people" and especially in the speech he gives at the end in which he talks about how obvios it is that the boy is guilty, and curses at everyone for not getting the support he thinks he should get.
ReplyDeleteEventualy, he changes his vote to "not guilty" out of frustration and decides he doesn't care what they decide.
Yes, Ido, we noticed this about him. But on the last day, we noticed something else about this juror, about what drives his prejudice. Read through his final speeches again and see what you notice.
Deletethe third juror is an excitable old fashioned man. we see him constantly cling to the past,back when "kids used to calls their fathers sir..." and shout out about every single point the 8th juror makes. he is stubborn tough and agressive, all things that come with his excitable old fashion personality and is the last one to change his vote.
ReplyDeleteand by the way... it's Shai. the website did not allow me to change the name
DeleteYes, I know what you mean. But he also seems to be a very sensitive, emotional man, no? In the end, we see how his vote was based on the hurt and anger he feels about his son. No?
DeleteThe 4th juror is a very logical person. He only looks for the facts, and bases his opinion on them, without much emotion involved. When many others either turn to their emotions, or are being passive, the 4th juror never fails to present an argument based on logical facts. When the last of his arguments gets shut down, and he realizes that the opposing arguments are logical, he doesn't stay stubborn, and changes his vote.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree. He seems to be a very calm and reasonable man.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe 10th juror is a fearful man. We might assume he is just prejudice or bias but in his monologue in the end we can see he claims that the boy is guilty because he is one of the "drunk", "dangerous" and "violent" people. Still, he votes "not guilty" at last because he is tired of people not listening to him. He feels defeated, so he just gives up on fighting against the other jurors and finishes the whole thing.
ReplyDeleteRight, Shir, in the end, we definitely see that fear drives his prejudice (or, maybe, is just an excuse?). (By the way, the adjective is "prejudiced" and "biased": juror 10 is prejudiced and biased.) It is interesting to question, generally, what lies behind racial or religious prejudice.
DeleteI wonder about how, in the end, he gives up and votes 'not guilty". I am not sure what exactly is happening to him there. Has he, from his violent outburst and the other jurors' reactions, recognized the ugliness of his prejudice, or at least realized that his prejudice is not enough to find the boy "guilty"?
The 9th juror is an old man, who is trying to stay objective in the argument. He remembers all the facts and details from the testimony, in order to be able to be right and based in his complaint. Also he does that in order to know what claim is based on facts or not. We can see that at the beginning of the play. When the 8th juror suggest that the boy isn’t guilty and stands alone against everyone, The 9th juror realize that maybe there is something he missed and helps the 8th juror being heard. The 9th juror is open minded and he understand that there always a different way of understanding things. Yaara
ReplyDeleteNice, Yaara. Yes, this juror is open-minded. He also seems to take this job seriously, and is ready to take the time necessary to think carefully about the issues.
DeleteThe 2nd juror at the beginning seems to be very passive and not very involves in the discussion, he says things that are not important (like when they are going to eat dinner), so you cannot understand a lot of details about his characteristics that guide him think in some way (maybe his lack of interest?). But next he was the person who was call the other jurors to calm down when they were yelling at each other (maybe he is brave in some way), and he changes his decision from guilty to not guilty after the 8th juror convinces him, so we can say that he is openminded.
ReplyDeleteAvigail, the 2nd Juror also initiates the reexamination of the downward movement of the knife. It's true that he's a quiet man (is he shy? a bit insecure? not comfortable with these people? just not a talkative guy?), but it doesn't seem to me that it's out of a lack of interest.
DeleteThe 12th juror is persuadable, he is not stubborn and is trying to determine right and wrong using facts. He is not a very dominant person, and seems like he gives thought to the discussion but is afraid to step in too much. The 12th juror prefers listening to other people than coming up with his own
ReplyDelete~David
DeleteI think back towards the beginning, when the 12th juror talks about his being in advertising. The whole group is stuck and he says, "I wish I knew how we could break this up," and then he tells how, at the agency, people throw out ideas, etc. He seems like a good-natured, friendly guy, who likes working with people. He likes being part of a group. Isn't he the only juror, also, who changes his vote twice? So it is not just that he's not dominant: he's easily persuadable.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe 9th juror is an open minded person. He is an old man, who I assume has lots of life experience, yet he respects the 8th juror, his position, and his sense of justice. Also, he doubts his own position. He does not exclude the possibility that he is wrong. The 9th juror is the first one to change his vote to "not guilty" after the 8th juror votes so. He does that not necessarily because he thinks that the boy is not guilty, but because he takes his responsibility seriously (more than others, at least), and he wants to hear more and consider his decision more carefully.
ReplyDeleteThe 9th juror also understands people's behavior well. He empathizes with the old man who gave the testimony, and understands what motivates him. After all those years of hearing many statements, he still tries to give everyone - including a boy from a slum - a fair opportunity to be judged.
You raise some really nice ideas here, Shir. That scene where he empathizes with the older witness made me first notice the 9th juror's imagination, his ability and willingness to fully imagine another's situation. Don't forget that, at the end of the play, the 9th juror is the one who also remembers and considers the eye-glass marks on the other witness's nose. Here, too, we see his diligence as a juror, how careful he is to think everything through. But then, look at how he understands and explains to the others why that woman might have removed her glasses before coming into court. Again, we see his imagination and ability to consider different people's motives and behavior.
DeleteThe foreman is a quiet and peaceful person, and he also wants everything to be neat and organized. He feels responsible to calm the other jurors when they arguing and he does this very nice and gently, like in this sample from the text: "All right, gentleman. Let's take our seats." The foreman is a calm, sympathy and little bit shy person, things that we can see throw out the text.
ReplyDeleteThe 7th juror is not an intelligent man. He is not trying to think about the case by himself. at the beginning he chose his decision just for leaving early and arriving to the ball game. After that he have not said any new information or thought . Even when he changed his mind he did not explain why.
ReplyDeleteThe 2th juror is a quiet character. He does not need to be apart of conversation to make a decision, he just needs to listen. The 2th juror changes his call for "not guilty" after a big conversation of the jurors. In the conversation a doubt about the evidence in the trail came out. He tries to make the right call, and a reasonable doubt is enough for his to votes "not guilty". - Mia
ReplyDeleteThe 8th Juror is motivied by his decision to give each case he gets a fair trial. He treats his place as a Juror very seriously and takes the responsebility it demands. We can see that he declares it as hes purpose right from the beginnig of the play, and stay loyal to it until they get the decision. The 8th Juror is an active thinker, he doubt the different facts of the case and not once prove that they werent all correct. By his active thinking he finally get to change the whole jury's vote.
ReplyDeleteYelly:)
The 11th juror is a calculated and quiet character. He listens to the others while they are arguing and takes notes so he will make the wise choice based on the avidens and ideas of the others.In the conversation my juror allmost never interferes only when he has somthing important to say or an idea he thinks that needs to raise to discuss about. In the first vote he voted "guilty" after a few arguments he voted "not guilty"-Noa Kopel
ReplyDeleteJuror number one (the Foreman) is a quiet man. He does not talk a lot, and when he does he tries to shorten in his words as much as he can and doesn't disclose his personal opinion. From the beginning of the play it seems like he is the Foreman's job reluctantly. Even if the jury gets noisy, he waits until it gets out of control and only than he will quite them. Even then, he will not say more than a sentence like "Let's keep it down here", or "let's vote for this".
ReplyDeleteThere are two times he speaks for himself in the play. In the first time, he tells that he's a football and a principal in a high-school. We can also notice that he speaks incorrectly sometimes ("we’re just startin’ to move the ball, off tackle, y’know.
Boom! Boom!" for example). The second time he speaks he reminds the jury of what the psychiatrist said (that the kid doe have murders intentions) and the jury , and mostly juror number 3 reject him. I think the Foreman is insecure, not passive, although he does not say his opinion actively, so I can't really know what guided his decision making. He votes guilty almost every vote, but in the last vote he changes his mind and votes not guilty. I can guess that what he said about the psychiatrist is not in favor of the boy, so he thinks he is guilty. Only after the jury rejects it he changes his mind.
The 3rd juror is a violent and excitable person. He speaks a lot and he demands respect and decision making from the other Jurors. He isn't very logical and mostly he's tongue is guided more by his emptions then he's mind. The experience of raising he's own child made him angry and bitter when it comes to the subject of kids. This anger for children made him a very subjective juror and it seems his own ego blocks him(sometimes) from reciving and listening to the claims and thoughts of others. He was the last juror to change vote from "guilty" to "not guilty" and it only was after the jurors told him "he's not your child. let him live".
ReplyDeleteOmer fridman
The 10th juror is one of the opposers in the trial. Very quickly we can see he's racist, and how much hate is in his speeches. He's a smart man that can manage small business, but he feels that he wastes his time in the court. Because of his brutal language the other jurors prefer not to listen to him, and by that he starts to feel unheared. This feeling makes him frustrated, and in his final speech we finally understand that his racism comes from real fear. At the end he votes "not guilty" although he thinks the boy murdered his father.
ReplyDeleteThe 8th juror is open-minded and fair. From the beginning, unlike a lot of different jurors, he was willing to discuss the case and evidence even though it seemed like an 'open-and-shut case'. Although he wasn't sure the boy was innocent, he still gave him a fair chance and stood up for him against other jurors. He only looked at the facts and didn't let his personal bias or prejudice get in the way of his decision making and was able to stay calm throughout the whole time. He brought up different scenarios that could have happened, used logic and reason to persuade the others and acted overall fairly and open-mindedly the whole time they were deliberating.
ReplyDeleteThe 7th juror is very impaitient and close-minded. All he thinks about is the ball game he is missing and ball games in genral. He is sure that no one will change his mind from guilty to not guilty he mentioned that the 8th juror can talk for handred years and won't change his mind.
ReplyDeleteAt the end he did suprise and changed his vote.