What do we know about this juror? Who is he? What does he care about? What does he think about the case and about the other jurors? Refer to everything you can—how the character behaves, what he says, how he interacts with others— in order to understand your character.
----Juror #7----
ReplyDeleteMy first impression of the 7th Juror is that he is a simple man. The first thing he says in the play is “Do you want some gum?” Then we find out that he is very impatient. He says things like “Hey, how about getting started here?” and “Hey, Mr. Foreman, let’s go. What d’you say?” We then find out that he is a Yankee fan and he has tickets to a game for that night. The 7th Juror uses slang such as “bullshit”, “baloney” and uses baseball terminology such as “slugger” and “Hang in there and pitch”. He is convinced that the boy is guilty and believes that it is okay that his father beat him regularly. From this I infer that he believes in strict parenting. He is a salesman by profession and he is proud of how much he sold last year. He is very sarcastic and makes inappropriate comments.
~Nadav~
Great details, Nadav. I wonder what exactly causes him to disagree so strongly with Juror 8. Do you think it is a parenting thing? That a son who is in conflict with his father is to blame? What is it going to take to make him change his mind?
Deletejuror -5-
ReplyDeleteThe things that we know about juror 5:
-Male nurse at a Harlem hospital- "... I nurse that trash in Harlem Hospitol six nights a week."
-Grew up in the slums- "I lived in a slum all my life..."
-A man who takes his obligations in this case very seriously.
-A man who is very doubting- he think that the old man would not have heard the boy yelled that he would kill his father
-A man who finds it difficult to speak up-at the beginning, when jurors were asked to speak in turn, Juror Five did no want to speak.
-Brechty-
Good, Brechty. Of course, it is important to remember that when he says "I nurse that trash" he is responding angrily to Juror 10, right? He resents poor people being refered to as "trash". From this we can see that his thinking is influenced by his sympathy for the boy and the boy's experiences. He is open to the logical arguments that are brought, and to evidence that raises doubt. He is one of the first jurors to change his vote.
DeleteGood detail noticing that Juror 5 doesn't want to voice his opinion at first. I wonder why.
~~Juror 4~~
ReplyDeleteJuror 4 is a broker. He doesn’t talk much, but we know that he thinks the boy is guilty. He is practical, logical and intellectual (he reads the newspaper and uses facts to support his vote). He is polite to the other jurors and doesn’t support the fight between them (he even tries to stop the yelling between the jurors). He doesn’t talk much, unless he is being asked a question or has something important to say.
Juror 4 thinks the boy is guilty, and he is not satisfied by juror 8’s explanations. It seems that he uses facts to decide the verdict, and not prejudice.
~~~~Gal
Good points. Yes, Juror 4 does seem to be a logical thinker, an honest man who really is trying to understand the case. He seems to take his responsibility seriously, yes? And I agree, he does not seem to be motivated by prejudice or anger or resentment.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete~Juror 9~
ReplyDeleteJuror 9 is an old man. At the beginning of the story he spends a lot of time in the bathroom (wirdow? secluded? kidneys problem?)... Anyway, he stopped working (pensioner) and we can infer from the way he speaks that he is educated. He doesn't talk much but when he does he says smart things and also fights for them. The way he answers to the other jurors, calmly, is typical to his age and indicates about his world view. In the jury, he was the first juror after juror 8, who led the movement, to vote "un-guilty" for the benefit of the doubt.
-Shaked XD
Interesting that you say that he "fights for" his ideas. This is an important quality, right? To have the courage to stand up for your opinions, even when they are unpopular. Juror 9 seems to have that quality.
DeleteWe don't know much about juror 9...
ReplyDeleteWe know that he is old, and probably is not working anymore
He is very polite:
-He doesn't talk very much so we can understand that his a good listener
-He talks to the other juror in a gentle way
I have a feeling that he feels appreciated by the other jurors, because his not afraid to say the things that the other jurors don’t want to hear. For example "not guilty"
This act is also tells about a will to justice.
Yuli
Juror 9 is not afraid to say things that others do not want to hear -- good point. This points to a type of courage that he has, a courage to stand up for your ideas even when they are unpopular. He is polite -- in an old fashioned way, I suppose, right? Just basic courtesies and a politeness that was once expected of everyone and taught in schools!
DeleteIt is interesting that you point out how he speaks gently to the other jurors. This makes me ask: Which jurors rely on loud arguments, sarcasm, yelling or violence? And which jurors rely on calm, quiet arguments? Which is more persuasive?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJuror #10
ReplyDeleteThe 10th juror does not seem to be intelectual because of his English mistakes and also because of his job that somehow connected to garages. He is impatient and all he wants is to leave the small room and continue working. He does not believe to any word that comes from the boy's mouth because the boy is black and from a low reputation neighborhood. He even said the in front of everyone "I mean, they're born liars". From that we can infer that the 10th juror is prejudice and selfish. He does not really care for the boy and all he wants is to go to work. Maybe that is why he tries to convince everyone to vote aggainst him. The 10th juror is also rude. He laughs about other people's opinion only to make his stay in the jury room shorter.
- Noga Nakash
By the way- my first respond was deleted :(
DeleteNoga, Did you delete it or did I? I see that some people have accidentally uploaded their answers twice, so I have deleted the doubles. Did I make a mistake and delete something I should not have? :-( Let me know.
DeleteNoga, Referring to the 10th Juror's English errors can certainly be brought as evidence of his education level. It presents him as a lower working-class man who isn't particularly educated. You also brought good evidence of his prejudice. He does not rely on evidence as much as on his personal feelings in drawing his conclusions. You also point out that he is rude. Right: he seems to rely more on yelling then on reasoned arguments. What do you think it will take for him to change his mind about the boy?
DeleteThe 2nd juror is a very quiet man. he doesn't talk much and when he does talk it is not with a long sentences. I think that the 2nd juror is a shy man and it take time for him to open to other people. at the first vote for "guilty" or "not guilty" he voted guilty and in the 5th vote he voted "not guilty".
ReplyDeleteWe don't know much more information about the 2nd juror but this.
Itay
Good, Itay. Yes, he does seem shy. Perhaps he lacks a bit of self confidence to oppose some of the louder people and it is hard for him to assert himself? Do you think he will change his vote? What would it take?
DeleteThe 3th juror-
ReplyDeleteThe 3th juror is the manager of a messenger service.The juror had a son who he tried to educate to be a "MAN"- never run from a fight, hit hard... One day they had a fight and the kid ran away... The juror hadn't seen him since :(
All throgh the first act he never changes his vote- it's always "guilty".
He says ALOT of racist comments, he is dogmatic, rude, arrogant and many more wonderful things...
The 3th juror never agrees wuth the The 8th juror- he thinks his opinions are wrong--> and later he thinks that about anyone who votes "not guilty".He thinks that only his opinions are good and silences rudley every juror who doesn't agree with him.
He is violent and a bit sadist- he even tries to ASSAULT one of the jurors!ahhhh :-O
Maya
Maya, I'd love to see what evidence you have for the third juror being racist. Is that what really drives him? He is definitely an angry man, but what exactly is he angry at? And with whom?
DeleteThe foreman (juror 1) is a serious and responsible person. He uses formal language and takes responsibility for conducting the jurors. It is important for him to be in control position, as we infer from his conversation with the 10th juror:
ReplyDelete10TH JUROR: Ah, stop bein’ a kid, will you?
FOREMAN: What, just because I’m trying to keep this thing organized?
He gets angry when others doubt his working method and call him a kid.
As a part of the job he takes on himself, he tries to stay objective. We infer that out of a few details:
- He votes “guilty” every time and never explains why.
- He fulfills others’ wills without arguing (like the knife he brought, the votes he holds)
- He doesn’t argue about others’ opinions.
Royee, the 1st and best juror.
Juror 1 certainly takes his position as foreman seriously. The fact that he cooperates with the others, asking the guard for items that jurors' request or calling for votes, is part of that responsibility. He doesn't seem to be an argumentative person. Do you think he is a leader? Does he have the qualities of a leader?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBriefly about juror number five:
ReplyDeleteIt is his first time in a jury. He comes from a low social economic class and he lived in a bad neighborhood as a child. Now he works as a nurse in Harlem Hospital. (Harlem is a bad neighborhood) He cares about people from the low class and takes it personal if someone insults them, probably because he was part of them or close to them all his life.
When he sits in the room with all the juries most of the time he is quiet and looks like a pretty shy person. However his silence and calmness helps him to pay attention to details and he does state his opinion or indicates different facts from time to time. Another thing we can say is that he is a Consider man, he takes his time and he doesn't hurry to decide. He is also a proud man and he doesn't let people to insult or disparage him.
At first he thought that the boy is guilty but later he changed his mind. During the trial, he noticed small details and pointed out various facts that people did not notice. For example, he noted that the old man could not run to the door as he said he did and suggested the possibility that not all the witnesses told the truth in the trial. In general, it doesn't seem like he is a judgmental person because he did not criticize other jurors and didn't say his opinion about any one of them.
Ho, and he is a fan on Milwaukee baseball team, BTW.
Arina.
Good points, Arina. I wonder if he feels a little insecure at first, being around some of these other men who are perhaps more 'successful', educated or of a higher socio-economic class? But you're right: despite his quietness, he seems to be paying attention and he doesn't let himself be bullied around by some of the louder and more aggressive jurors. He feels sympathy for the boy's situation since he, too, comes from a poor background.
DeleteJuror number six:
ReplyDeleteJuror number six is a working man, he told about himself that he is a house painter and unused to work under the authority of somebody else. From this information we can understand that the man was unuesd to make a very important decisions by himself, and was always influenced in some way by the majority opinion. He have no bad intention to destroy or shorten the trial. In the beginning maybe we can think that he wants to go home and finished with it, but after a while I understood that he was just sore about his choice. After the 8th juror give him some doubt he start to take a bigger place in the dissolution and even changed his vote to "not guilty".
I have noticed that in most of the time in which he talks, the conversation is between him and juror number 8th. He also understand the threat that juror number 3th brings to the room and help the other people to talk when he is predominant.
Juror number six is not an educated man but he is a logical man that that listen to the evidences and tries to do his best.
neomi
Good ideas, Neomi. You propose that Juror 6 is a bit insecure and that it is difficult for him to disagree with other more powerful people. When they first go around the room, I noticed how he voices his opinion and said something logical-- that he "was looking for the motive", but he also doesn't want to appear argumentative or to really challenge anyone, and he added, "I mean, I can be wrong." But later (page 30) I see how he challenges juror 8 and doesn't want to take too much responsibility for the boy's fate. Later he becomes very angry when juror 3 speaks badly towards juror 9, the older man. Did you notice that? I wonder why.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletejuror 4-
ReplyDeleteJuror number four is a broker, we know that he is a broker because he told to the jurors after they saw that he was interested in the stock market and in the changes that was written in the news paper. Juror number four is an intelligent man, we notice that when he speaks because he speaks in a high language most of the times. We can also say that he is a smart man that always going with the logic that he thinks is right and he doesn't have an open mind, he always stays in the box with his thinking and he doesn't like to change his mind.
In the story juror number four thinks that the boy is guilty because of the evidences that they know from the case and from the things that the police gave in the court that they saw before the evidences was presented.
~Hadas
Good, Hadas. (But remember: there is no such thing as "evidences"!!! 'evidence' is a non-countable noun!) Would you say that he is an unemotional man? Do you think he will change his mind? And if so, what will make him change his mind?
DeleteMy first impression of the 12th juror is that he is a creative man. The 12th juror is an advertisement man, he uses advertisement expressions in his speak. He doesn’t talk much, but I know that he thinks the boy is guilty, his speak shows that he does not think smartly. From his speak I can infer he easily changes his opinion. He has a weak character, his thinking is about advertising, while he is in the jury he thinks about advertising ways. His only idea that he suggested was connected to advertising "put it on a bus on the Wall Street....". I think the jury does not interesting him, but in the same time he knows what is going on the jury.
ReplyDeleteYes, the 12th juror is relatively quiet. I don't know why you think he has a weak character--because he doesn't talk more? He does seem to be trying though, right? Does he take his responsibility seriously? .
DeleteJamil -- Compare "speak" (verb) with "speech" (noun).
I think his character is weak because he is easily changing his mind and thinking. But I think that he is taking his responsibility seriously, because he is listening to other jurors and trying to effect them.
DeleteI think his character is weak because he is easily changing his mind and thinking. But I think that he is taking his responsibility seriously, because he is listening to other jurors and trying to effect them.
DeleteYes, I know what you mean! In the second act we really see his indecision. (You do not mean "effect", though. You mean: affect or influence.)
DeleteJuror #11
ReplyDeleteJuror 11 is a watchmaker from a germman speaking country in the middle of Europe. He has a reasonable doubt about the boy and that tells us the he is doubtful and doesn't believe anything. he is also very thoughtful and calculated and you can see it when he says that he wrote some notes before he even started to speak about the case. he is a bit pedantic and it can be seen in the play when he fixes the guy that said something wrong.
Aviv
Juror 11 is probably from Germany, no? I don't understand what you mean, Aviv, when you say that juror 11 'has a reasonable doubt about the boy and that tells us that he is doubtful and doesn't believe anything." Can you explain yourself better? Can you refer to a specific thing that juror 11 says? I agree that he is very thoughtful, but as we said in class, I do not think that the word "calculated' is correct here. Can you find another word?
DeleteJuror #10
ReplyDeleteThe 10th jurer - me, is an angry and bitter man. He is Infamous for his racist and almost violent phrases and of his prejudiced opinions. He doesn't really care about human life, nor about people who doubt the facts and cause him to stay away from his three garages. He, or should I say from now on- I, believe that the other jurers are acting crazy by trying to see other scenarios then what had been presented in court. All of those 'intellectuals' are just acting as if it's OK for this black scum to share my air, but I know the truth, and no matter how many lies the other jurers are spitting, it's not going to change the fact that this boy murdered his father. I dont want to sound rude (actually a dont really care), but some of the jurers here are saying some of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard! I mean- Holly cow! wake up kids! let's just declare a Hung jury and get this nonsense over with.
Gali Alon.
Right. Juror 10 is angry and racist. He is not interested in seriously considering the evidence (or lack of evidence). You make a good pint about his not being interested in seeing "other scenarios". Right: he does not seem to able to imagine other possibilities than what is easy to assume. He seems to act on emotions, right? Anger. Maybe fear?
DeleteJuror number 7
ReplyDeleteA very impatient man who will do almost anything to finish the trial. He is a salesman and he is proud of his achievements. He uses baseball phrases as metaphors in order to emphasize his point. He doesn't care about whether the trialed boy is going to die or not and what he really cares about is the baseball game that he has tickets for later in that evening.
One example for him being impatient is "Well, what's there to talk about? Eleven men here agree. Nobody had to think twice about it, except you." which we see at the beginning of the play. Later on in the play when someone says that it's better to keep the jury hung and let the next twelve jurors decide, he supports this idea without doubt.
Niv ☻
Right. He is impatient. He is not motivated by racism or prejudice though, right? Just, perhaps, shallowness? Laziness? I mean, in that he doesn't take the time or energy to really think and consider things? Perhaps he is not used to thinking seriously about issues, to considering cause and effect, or imagining things that are not explicitly shown him.
DeleteThe 11th juror in a few points:
ReplyDelete* He is a foreign watchmaker from a german speaking country in Europe.
* As someone who chose to come to America, he likes it and believes in its values. Therefore, I think he sees this as an opportunity to fulfill the wonders of the American system.
* At first he votes guilty, but with time he changes his mind and votes not guilty.
* He is very polite and uses the word "pardon" all the time.
* When the 5th juror gets sensitive about the slums, the 11th juror says he understands his sensitivity and sympathizes with him. From this we can learn he himself is sensitive to others, maybe mainly to the weak.
* He says about the witnesses that "Facts may be colored by the personalities of the people who present them." I just really liked this sentence and wanted to point it out that he said it.
* He is wise, and probably educated.
* He doesn't believe he has to be loyal to any side, he just asks questions in order to get to the truth.
* He takes his job a juror rather seriously, and I think it really matters to him what will happen to the boy.
* During the discussion he acts in different ways: at first he only answers to others who talk to him (mainly the 12th juror), corroborates others' statements, or corrects them. He pays attention all the time to little details like time and grammar. Near the end of act one (Page 38) we found out he took notes during the discussion, and he uses them to speak. From this we learn he is organized and calculated.
And in the end, he is kind of cool.
Yotam
This is a terrific gathering of details and initial analysis of this juror. It's interesting (and, I think, accurate) that Rose made this juror an immigrant who appreciates a justice system that some of the others take for granted. I'm not sure what you mean by "educated". I don't imagine he is an academic or has any advanced degrees-- he is a watchmaker. But he is smart, skilled (watchmaker!) and polite, and he is a clear, reasoned, and analytical thinker. (As I said in class, you use "calculated" incorrectly.)
DeleteInteresting the change you see in him. Right: at first he speaks only when spoken to, but then he becomes more assertive (though never aggressive).
Oh, and I love the quote you brought! Isn't that true??!!! Remind me to give you an excellent essay (originally a lecture) on "What Is History?" in which this idea is explored and developed beautifully.
DeleteMy character is the 3rd juror, an impatient, racist, rude and dogmatic man. He is sure that the teen is guilty, even after the jury has proved a reasonable doubt. He continues to make fun of, insult and attack the other jurors. He refers to the teen many times by “those kind of people” and such adjectives. Kind of wants to keep the blacks in jail, as if they could not be good people.
ReplyDeleteSharon Litvin
Sharon, Please look again and bring evidence for your interpretations. Your character speaks a lot, so we can really examine him closely. Go back and reread everything this juror has said and then see if you can interpret his behavior more clearly. He's angry, but at what? At whom?
DeleteMy character is the 12th juror, he is an advertising man who talks about his job everytime he can, "Heres an idea. Let’s run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes it". On one hand he is not talkative, on the other hand he is not quiet as well. He doesn't have arguments.
ReplyDeleteDor Shaul
Dor, He does not talk about his job, but he uses his job's jargon. When he says "let's run it up the flagpole," though, he is actually laughing at the way people in advertising speak (go back and look at what he says on pp. 28-29). Is he open-minded, though? Is he willing to consider new ideas and arguments? Does he take his job as a juror seriously?
DeleteThis is the Foreman speaking, and I'm juror number 1. I'm quite I don't speak but care 'bout everyone. I think the boy is guilty but why I don't explain. Responsible and serious nothing's driving me insane. I try to stay cool, for everybody's sake, but the job I do's important never put it at stake. I got angry, so what? Everybody does! I don't take things lightly, I'm considering the cause. What I think I never show, about me nothing that you know, maybe just that I'm a coach, So I have a different approach. I keep the jury organized, you can thank me later, but I let the others talk, maybe what they'll say is greater. To summerize I'm a cold man that it warm, and the only thing I ever really said was about a game that reminds me of this storm.
ReplyDeleteSagi Shumer
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteOh yeah
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI'm with Royee-- oh yeah!
DeleteDo we know what Juror 1 does in life? He seems to be an honest, simple man, who takes his responsibility seriously (but not in a pompous way). He does try to be objective. You have said all these things in a very cool way!
DeleteGreat rap, Sagi!!!!!!! (But notice: ;quiet vs. quite; summery vs. summary/summarize.)
Hello everyone,
ReplyDeleteSo I figured out it's pointless to add another description of a character - it seems like they have all been described. I chose instead to identify the references to baseball made by the 7th juror, and see how they fit in.
At first, let's take a real quick look at the baseball game. There's a defense team, consisting of a pitcher and a catcher. The pitcher throws the ball, and the catcher is supposed to catch it. The offense team's main player is the batter, who stands between the two defense players, and tries to hit the ball away before it will get caught. If he succeeds, he starts to run and touch all the bases, back to the home base. That'd be considered an inning. There are many more important rules, but that'll do.
Now, we know that the 7th juror is a baseball fan - he's "got tickets to a ball game". He's in favor of the Cleveland Browns, and of their new player, Modjelewski. Dick Modzelewski is a former pitcher, known for his aggressive game style. 7th juror demonstrates it by imitating the movement of a ball thrown by Dick. Later, the 3rd juror makes a joke - to the 4th juror's question, "if it wasn't the boy, who was it", he answers "Modjelewski". This way, he gets the baseball fan's sympathy.
The 7th juror judges other people by the teams they like. When he discovers that the 5th juror is a Milwaukee fan, he laughs at him, and stops considering him seriously - he remembers that detail, and responds to a later comment by the 5th juror with scron, saying "And the Milwaukee fan is heard from". He uses the slang for a hard-pitching player, "slugger", in response to the 8th juror, who demonstrated dominance and said "Let's take an hour. The ball game doesn't start till 8 o'clock".
The vote reaches six-to-six at some point, and the 7th juror says, "And we go into extra innings here". Extra innings are preformed in case of a tie between the baseball teams.
There's a slight evidence that the baseball terminology is deeper than the above remarks. In the discussion about the old man, and whether he could reach the door in time, the 7th juror says, "Ran. Walked. What's the difference? He got there". It might be something anyone could have said, but I suggest that to the 7th juror, what matters is the result and not the way it is achieved. This binary way of thinking is similar to the ball game rules - it doesn't matter how the batter got to the home base, but whether he did or didn't. The 7th juror also says, "Why don't we have them run the trial over just so you can get everything straight?" - This question hints of a baseball's fan thinking. He accepts the results, because he understands that the game can't run twice. There may be judgement mistakes, but a fan must ignore them. That's the rule.
Shimshon! This was such a great idea. And you are right: it is necessary to understand a bit of baseball (something I forgot that most Israelis do not) in order to understand the 7th juror's comments. I will just correct you in your definition of an inning: during the baseball game, one team is "at bat", trying to hit the ball and run around the bases (which are "safe spots", while the other team is "in the field", pitching to the batter and then trying to tag the runners "out". The teams switch after the batting team gets three "outs" (someone doesn't manage to hit the ball, or they hit the ball and run but the other team gets the ball and tags them with it). A full rotation in which each team is "up" and then "in the outfield" is called an inning.
DeleteYour focus on the 7th juror's words, "Ran. Walked. What's the difference? He got there," is excellent. Right! This does give us insight into his character: the details don't matter, the reasons or causes are unimportant: what matters is the bottom line. This guy isn't good with nuances-- with subtle distinctions. (This is no talmudic scholar!) For him, things are black or white, right or wrong, good or bad.
Great work.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete