I think that the main issue raised in the first act of the play is the issue of peer pressure. Eleven jurors voted “guilty” and only one voted “not guilty”. The 8th juror says that he voted not guilty because he wants to consider that possibility. During the first act of the play some of the other jurors change their minds. I think that the reason that they voted “guilty” in the first place was because they were affected by peer pressure. According to Wikipedia there are four responses to peer pressure: •Compliance – Disagreeing with the opinion of the group, but going along with the group opinion nonetheless. •Conversion – Changing personal opinion to agree with the opinion of the group. •Congruence – Agreeing with the opinion of the group from the onset. •Non-Conformity – Either remaining independent (e.g., not succumbing to group pressure and maintaining personal opinion), or anti-conformity (purposefully expressing opinions contrary to the status quo). I assume that the 8th Juror’s response is due to anti-conformity. He purposely expressed the opposite opinion to cause the jury to discuss it further. The response of the other jurors was originally due to Congruence, they agreed with the majority from the onset. However, their opinion changed over time because of the doubts raised in the discussion initiated by the 8th Juror. In the end of Act I some of the jurors were not influenced by peer pressure, but rather voted by what they believed or did not believe. ~Nadav~
Peer pressure -- and the ability to stand up for your convictions despite it-- is certainly shown in this play. The four different responses that you bring are so interesting. I actually don't see the 8th jurors initial vote as an act of non-conformity, though. I mean, his point isn't just to "go against" the group. His point is to cause everyone to spend a few minutes at least thinking/talking about the case, since he seems to have some doubts. Is that just "due to anti-conformity"? This play can certainly be analyzed, though, in the context of a larger discussion about peer pressure. Great idea, Nadav.
Nadav, I disagree with you. I think that the main issue raised in this act is the unfairness of the boy’s trial. Starting from the beginning, the jurors’ duty is to choose one out of two dramatic options: To send a 16-year-old to the electric chair or send a possible murderer free. Y ’know what? That doesn’t sound fair to me. Like this isn’t enough, the boy’s lawyer is against his client himself. As the 7th juror says, “his own lawyer knew he didn’t stand a chance right from the beginning”. His lawyer has raised some pretty weak argument, like the claim that the boy’s knife fell out of his pocket. The only one who raises some smart ideas is the 8th juror. His ideas about the noise of the el train and the old man’s slow walk convinced the 5th, 9th and 11th jurors to vote “not guilty”. None of the boy’s lawyer’s arguments seems to convince a juror to change his mind. Royee
Royee, How do you know that the boy's lawyer is against his client? That isn't exactly what the 7th juror said and, anyway, how reliable is the 7th juror as an interpreter of things? I think it is a difficult idea to defend. You might say that his lawyer was unskilled, or didn't present a great case . . . but I'm not sure that we can ascertain his motives. (But I'd love to hear your response.) When you say that the unfairness of the trial is the point, so you mean that the play is showing how unfair the justice system can be towards certain people? Yes, I can certainly see this play being discussed in the context of such a discussion though, of course, the end of the play turns out well for the accused. If that's what it's about, then it is interseting that it focuses on the jurors, and not on the trial itself. Hmm. Maybe it shows how, despite racism and poor representation, the jury system can be a safeguard for justice? (I'm just thinking out loud here.) What do you think, now that we've (almost) finished the play?
I think that two of the first act's main ideas are the injustice of the justice system and the absurdity of the jury. The injustice of the justice system: - At the beggining most of the juries, except the 8th, don't question the boy's guilt because of their prejudices about black people + the reputation of the boy's neighborhood. - The boy's lawyer wasn't doing any effort in order to help him--> according to the juries he himself was SO convinced the boy is guilty that he didn't see any point in qestioning the prosecution. - The boy couldn't replace his lawyer- maybe he couldn't afford himself someone better\ he didn't know he has this possibility. The absurdity of the jury: # The juries fight over stupid things- seating arrangement, who offended who... # Most of the juries don't REALLY want to be there--> the 7th jorur wants to make it in time to some game and the others are just in a hurry to get the discussion done and go. # The actions they do are childish :-P one chwes gum loudly, one doodles slogan abuot rice pops and almost all of them think (at list at the begining) that they know better than the others and don't really care about what they say.
Maya, make sure to be precise when you refer to details in the play. -- I do not think that there is evidence that all (or even most) of the jurors' initial "guilty" verdict is because of their racism. (And if it's not racism, then what caused them to think he's guilty? Perhaps other prejudices, or perhaps simply because they were convinced by the lawyers-- they didn't stop to question any of the evidence itself? maybe it is just that they are not active, critical thinkers, but believe what an "authority figure" tells them?) -- We do not know that the boy's lawyer "wasn't [making] any effort to help him". Who says that? How many jurors agree with it? Is this an opinion that you find completely credible? if the lawyer did not do a fabulous job (and it seems that he didn't), what might other explanations be? --Is it true that "most" of the jurors don't want to be there? go back and check who exactly is impatient and wants to leave. -- I'm not sure that "almost all" don't care and aren't willing to listen and think about new ideas. Be careful of generalizing like this. The meaning comes out of an appreciation of the details! (And finally, make sure you understand the different between "juror" and "jury".)
It seems like you know what you’re talking about Maya. The injustice of the justice system and the absurdity of the jury…
The boy didn't even knew all his rights on the court! I suppose nobody bothered to explain anything to him before the trial. Poor boy… The prejudice about his neighborhood with his and his family history, they didn't give him a chance. And you saw how the jury talked about him, one of them thinks that his baseball game is more important than the boy’s life. Their decision will determine the fate of the boy and they just want to finish with it and go. They didn't think for a second that this is real human's life.
Arina, Your criticism is too general. Rose has given us 12 different men, each of whom has his own background, motives, personality. I am not sure that we can generalize as you do. Read my comment to Maya!
One of the main ideas in Act 1 is prejudice and indifference. In the beginning of the play there is no reason to think that the boy didn’t kill his father, but then juror 8 explains all of the problems with the prosecution’s evidences. Yet, some of the juries, led by juror 3, still insist that the boy is guilty, with no doubt. We can see that their position is influenced by their life and their personality (for example, juror 3 is influenced by his child, and juror 7 is a cynical who care less about the boy’s life) but always of the facts. Their pride and prejudices might kill an innocent boy. During the play the jury changes their mind and sees the flaws in their former judgement. ~~~~~Gal
I don't think that this play is about "pride and prejudice". Prejucide-- okay. But why pride? What you initially say–- indifference-- is better. Maybe it is about the dangers of prejudice and indifference in the justice system?
One of the main ideas in Act 1 is how dinamic is the justice system. I mean, at the beggining everyone was convinced that the boy is guilty, and now, as they reveal more details, the opinion of part of them is being changed. I think that this is the problem with the justice system- you need a fantastic lawyer so you would convince more people to be on your side, sometimes with missing and sometimes with adding details. Another problam with this jury is that not everyone cares (as Maya said before). They want to leave the little room and to go to watch a game for exaple. Sometimes the trial depens on people and since people tend to be prejudice, the system is not allways right, and it can harm people. -Noga Nakash
Noga, I am not sure that the play clearly or specifically supports your idea that you need an excellent lawyer. It seems to me that the play can also be evidence of the opposite view. This boy clearly did not have a highly skilled lawyer, and yet is not found guilty by the jury.
Hey Guys, what's up?? I think that the main issues in act I are the injustice of the justice system and the prejudism in it. XD You see, threwout this all act J.8 tried to convince all the others that their first assumption might be wrong. His fight with them meant more than the future of the kid. He tried to convey them something principal!! This play isn't about the kid, it's about what happens in the jury, and we can see that at the end of this act there is a change- two more votes for "un-guilty", which means J.8's message was conveyd!! Yayyyy ;) BTW: You know, they keep saying that the kid comes from a bad place and his record doesn't really help him either, and it's very easy to say that and go back to your good life (as they all do at first). So I must say that I'm very proud of J.8's morality, courage and tenacity!
Is the idea the injustice of the justice system? The justice system forces the jurors to keep struggling and trying to convince one another, and so it keeps them there past Act One (and, as we know, the boy does receive justice from the jury). Is the system prejudiced? Maybe, but how exactly is that shown in this play? It seems to me that the first act does show us the many different ways that people make decisions, and the different ways that their experiences, histories, personalities, and different prejudices influence their thinking. I agree with you when you say that the play isn't about the accused but about what happens in the jury.
I think that the main idea in the first act is the indifference of the jury about the kid's life. Obviously the jurors care more about their own business than their very important job (to decide if a boy will live or not). The fact that they decide in the beginning to let the boy die without any conversation is unreasonable and shocking so it's make the readers feel the injustice and think that it's not moral and very selfish thing to do. We can see it in the story when one of the juror said that he rather to be mistake and let the boy die, than he will be mistake and the boy will kill people in the streets. yuli
Which juror said that, Yuli? I think it is important to keep track of the different jurors and not to let them all become a blur. Each one has his different reasons for voting the way he does. Indifference is a good word to bring to this discussion! But I guess that there are different versions of indifference in the jury. It might be interesting to ask what are the different causes of indifference? And how are these different causes shown in the play?
I think that one of the main idea in act 1 is that not all the jurors are takeing the case seriously enough, the most of them just want to get done with it and go back to their business, for example one of them want to done with the case quickly beacause he want to watch a game later that night, how can the jurors make justice if they doesn't pay attention to the all details and instead they are busy in the game?
Is it true that "most of them" want to hurry through and get back to their jobs? I'm not sure. Is it that they don't take the case seriously, or that they just aren't really thinking deeply about things? Maybe the first act shows us how most people don't think critically enough, and just believe things that "experts" tell them to believe? Hmmm. Right: how can any of us be responsible citizens if we don't pay attention to the details and think critically about them?
Like others , also I think that one of the main ideas in act 1 is the dynamic in the justice system. I think that the most important thing that written in act 1 was the introduction. In the introduction was written that the Judge said to the juries -"I urge you to deliberate honestly and thoughtfully... You are faced with a grave responsibility…". from this sentence we can learn how the justice system should behave. The play came to show us that this behavior did'nt exist in the justice system. We see in the play that the juries that were supposed to be objective were'nt objective, but rather subjective. The jurors's motivations and their conceptions of justice are influenced from their personalities and experiences. For example Juror number ten was affected from his prejudices about black people, and number three was affected from his relationship with his son and so on. Another thing that was wrong in this case was the attitude of the boy's lawyer to the case. It seems that the boy's lawyer wasn't doing anything to help him, 'cause he was convinced the boy is guilty.
Excellent ideas, Brechty. It is great to go back to the judge's directions and see the ideas that are raised there. The jurors are told to "deliberate honestly and thoughtfully". And you also chose to quote his final words, when he reminds the jurors that they "are faced with a grave responsiblity". So is this play an examination of how to deliberate honestly and thoughtfully? What does that mean, to "deliberate honestly and thoughtfully"? In the play, we see doubts raised, prejudices and fears exposed, accusations of laziness and impatience and insensitivity made. And slowly, slowly we see how logic and fairness prevails. I agree with you, too, when you point out how the play shows how people's opinions and judgements are colored by their experiences and personalities. What sort of portrait emerges of each juror? What are the connections that Rose makes between the jurors' biographies and their opinions? That could be a good question to explore. I am not sure that there is evidence that the boy's lawyer had a bad attitude. Are you sure about that? Are there any other possible explanations for his poor work in this case?
In the story "Twelve Angry Men", in the first act indicates an important issue about the legal system in 1957. In the beginning the judge instruct and urge the jury to decide "deliberate honesty and thoughtfully" because the life of the child is at stake!!! I think this is an important point that most of the jury did not understand. All the time we can see evidence of impatience in the room, disrespect and misunderstanding of the importance of their word. In the beginning It was such a thoughtless decision for them that the 8th juror had to vote and fight for even just considering the other opinion.
[Neomi: notice that you forget the s at the end of verbs: the judge instructS and urgeS the jury . . ] Like Brechty, you, too, have gone back to the judge's initial diretions to the jury. Excellent! YEs, so, has the jury fulfilled their obligations? Do they deliberate honestly and thoughtfully? (Read my comment to Brechty for more of my ideas about that.) Hmmm. Maybe the play shows us how easily most of us are convinced of things, even when the evidence that is used is not good? Maybe the play comes to show us how hard we each have to work, to think, to ask questions, in order to be responsible citizens and to treat each other fairly? In any case, I certainly agree with you (and many of your classmates) who see the first act as a demonstrations of most of the jurors' intellectual laziness and some of their resistence to changing their minds!
I think that two of the first act's main ideas are the system of the juries in the USA, and the power of the logical thinking. #The system of the juries and their injustice: -The jurors are people from different societies and different education levels. -The jury's verdict "stronger" than the the court's decision. -The jury's verdict should be unanimous. The judge's system is unjust as the jury's system because of the jurors does not take the jury seriously, they decide fast, and they do not use facts which change the verdict of the jury that change the human's life. #The force of the logical thinking: the logical thinking of the 8th juror (the only juror that discusses the crime seriously and thinking) "helps" him to convince other three jurors (until act one) to change their mind and to vote unguilty. Using the evidence, thinking logically, taking the jury seriously and using the facts is the minimum that the juror needs to do. But no juror do that out of the 8th juror. The 8th juror shows the force and the power of the logical thinking.
Good. It is interesting, now, to rethink your ideas in light of Act 2 (in which justice is achieved, logical thinking overcomes intellectual laziness and prejudice and impatience and ignorance). By ending Act 1 where he did, Rose certainly makes us question the fairness of the American justice system, though the second act seems to reassure us that, in fact, the system works. Jamil, you are not using some of the terminology correctly. What do you mean by the "court's decision"? (I think you were saying this in class yesterday, too, and this was a source of my confusion.) There was a TRIAL. During the trial lawyers made their arguments, brought witnesses, and presented their cases. No decision is made in the courthouse at that time. When the lawyers finish presenting their cases, the jury then needs to make their decision, and that is the part of the process that is described in this play. Although the play begins with the jurors seeming to make a quick decision, the fact that the jury needs to be unanimous prevented this jury from coming to a decision so quickly. And in fact, we see that within a single day (!), they -- as a whole -- are convinced by logic. Yes, I agree: this play is certainly evidence of the power of logical thinking!!! And it also helps to show what helps or hinders logical thinking: personal experiences, prejudices, personalities. It would be interesting to learn more about the advantages and disadvantages of juries that are made of one's peers and a jury made up of (projessional) judges.
I think like Itay in his first idea. one of the main ideas in the first act is the problems in the justice system, we can see that in the play when juror 8 trying to talk seriously but the other jurors don't take him so seriously as they supposed to do and no one is telling somthing about it.
Hadas, You need to be more specific in determining a main idea (or theme). What "problems" are there? Is it true that no one takes Juror 8 seriously? (I don't think that is true.) Act One, it seems to me, shows exactly how a number of the jurors do take Juror 8 seriously. If we go back to the beginning, we see that it is really only Jurors 3, 7, and 10 that are trying to hurry through the process. Quite quickly (page 13!), Juror 9 begins to challenge Juror 10. Juror 12 makes a good suggestion of how to proceed and fulfill their responsibilities. It is true that most of the jurors have come to the jury room already convinced of the accused's guilt. They were convinced by the prosecutor's arguments. So what exactly is the problem that you want to point out?
two main ideas in act I are sceptical thinking and the jury power and flexibility. sceptcal thinking is presented in the story when #8 has a reasonable doubt and he says that the boy is not guilty, and slowly more people join him and it becomes even in the votes for guilty and not guilty. this brings me to the second idea, jury power and flexibility and that can be seen when the judge tell the jurors that the life of someone is based on their verdict so they must be absolutly sure about ther desicion because they dont want to send an innocent man to jail. Aviv
[Aviv, don't forget the 's for possessive form, the apostrophe in contractions [don't], and the S on verbs [when the judge tellS the jurors] I don't know what you mean by "jury power" ("the jury's power"). How is that a main idea? Maybe you are saying that the first act emphasizes the"grave responsibility" that the judge mentions in his opening remarks? Okay. And what does it say about it? YOu mention skeptical thinking. So the play shows the value of it? Or it shows how most people don't automatically use it?
The juror number 2 is the quietest juror among the jury, who takes his time to feel comfortable enough to participate in the discussion. He is a shy guy, and he really does not talk a lot. It seems that he actually speaks and responds to comments in the room, his sentences are disjointed and hesitant and his intentions are unclear. He avoided any definitive determinations and usually his opening words are "I guess…". Juror number 2 is easily swayed and usually adopts the opinion of the last person to whom he has spoken. His arguments are unfounded or reasoned and he finds it difficult to explain his views. Omer
Yes, Juror 2 is a quiet man, perhaps shy. Does he change his opinion? (Can you show exactly where?) He does seem to take his responsibility as a juror seriously and listens and considers everything that is said. Right? In the end, he even initiates a new line of thinking.
I think that the main idea of the play is to show the complexity and the inter-human encounter that exist in every jury ,one way or another. The boy's trial is not the central motif. The play wants to show "behind the scenes" and hidden difficult sides of the judiciary Omer
Interesting. So the play shows us how juries work. Can you be more specific? What exactly are the difficulties? What makes the jury's work complex? And what exactly does this play (as opposed to other plays and stories and books about trials and juries) highlight in the inter-human encounter? Again, you need to take acount of details in your discussion. It is easy to relate to things on a very general level, but for a discussion to have substance, we need to have noticed and analyzed details.
Boy oh boy, I have to admit that to identify a couple of main ideas from the first act seems like a rather unnecessary task, especially since my fellow jurors did such a good job, but the hell with it. I think that one of the main issues that pop up in act 1 is the indifference of people to human suffering. As we all know, the old Masters were never wrong about it, and nither do I when I say that some people can't look beyond their own noses even in a case of deciding if someone is alive or dead! (even if it's a scum like him).
Identifying main ideas is never unnecessary! :-) Some questions that arise from your comments are: How does this play show the indifference to human suffering? What does this play say about the sources/causes of people's indifference? Can this play help us to understand the sources of our indifference? (this is just another way of asking the previous question) How does the jury system protect an accused person against the possible indifference of jurors? Your implicit comparison with Auden's poem is FABULOUS! So let's ask some real questions! How does this play (as a whole) support Auden's main idea? HOw does it contradict it?
One of the main ideas in the play is that the jurors prejudge the trialed boy. They automatically decide that he is guilty without hesitating for a moment. Luckily, there is still one juror that thinks the trial was unfair and that maybe there is a chance that the boy didn't kill his father. the objection of this juror to the common assumption that the boy had killed his father caused a conflict which develops the story of the play.
I do not think that the play proposes that all the jurors prejudge him: most of them seem to have arrived at their conclusions during the trial. Don't forget, we don't watch the trial itself. At the very beginning, both the 11th and 12th jurors talk about how good the prosecuting attourney was. This leads me to conclude that they were convinced by his arguments (and not by prejudice).
In my opinion, one of the main issues that are discussed in act one is the problems with the American judiciary system, and mainly with the jury. Supposedly, everyone who gets to the court has the right to a jury of his peers, who can't gain anything of the results of the trail and doesn't hold anything against him (the accused). But, as we can see in the play, many of the jurors don't really care what will happen to him and some even want him to die, just because of prejudice. The fact that the whole play takes place inside of a closed room with just the jurors in it shows us that what really matters in this system is the politics between the jurors and not the case itself. Everything that ever happened to each juror influences his opinion and acts. I think that the 11th juror, who is a foreign man, is written in the play in order to show us the tension between how America wants its system to work (how he understands it) and what really happens. This is conveyed perfectly in two times he speaks: what should happen- "I don't believe I have to be loyal to one side or the other. I am simply asking questions"; what really happens- "Facts may be colored by the personalities of the people who present them". And therefore, again, the main issue of act one is the problems with the American judiciary system.
You have connected the play with the right of every citizen to an "impartial jury". Great. Is there such a thing? What does that mean, exactly? What does the play tell us about this concept? You focus on the setting of the play, that it all takes place within a closed room, and you bring this as evidence that the play is about the dynamics between the jurors and not the case itself. Good point. You focus on Juror 11 and an analylsis of his character. Great. It might be interesting to analyze each character: what does Rose tell us about each? How can we understand each juror's behavior according to his own biography? Does the play focus on the problems with the American judiciary system or the strengths? What problems does the play show us? What strengths?
I think that one of the main issues that is brought up in the story, is the fact that no one can have a truly fair trial. A trail is based on the “objective” opinion of the judge\jury. But can anyone be truly objective? Of course not! We all have our stories and our history to change our mind, sets up apart from other people. SO, how can we create trial that would be fair in our society? And how can it be fair to the ones who need the justice most and have the last chances to get them?
Does the boy receive a fair trial (in the end)? How does the trial/jury system (the American judicial system) try to ensure fairness? What insights does this play give us into the subjective/objective opinion debate? Is there such a thing as objectivity? (I guess that that question would bring us into the realm of philosophy.) How exactly does Rose show us the connection between people's experiences/histories/personalities and their opinions and judgements? Other questions that arise from your comments: What changes have been made in the judicial system (American or Israeli) that help to ensure fairness? Does Rose's play support the main ideas proposed by Glaspell's play/short story?
I think the main idea in the story is that the jurors don't really care about the boy's life. At the beginning they vote guilty without even talk about the kid's case, because they wanted to go back to their business (one juror wants to finish fast because he wants to go to a baseball game). Without juror 8, they would decide that the boy is guilty and send him to his death. Only after juror 8 talks, they start to think more brightly and discuss the boy's case. Dor Shaul
Dor, I do not think you can find evidence that "the jurors don't really care about the boy's life". While that may be true about a few of the jurors, it is not necessarily true of the others. Each juror has his own story and his own motives for voting as he does. There are different factors that influence each one. Most think that they have arrived at their verdicts objectively: they've listened to the lawyers arguments and they've been persuaded. But what influences them? Of course, we've identified how some are biased and even prejudiced. But others just have poor thinking skills (read Shimshon's analysis of the 7th juror's use of baseball terminology, especially the end, where he talks about one of the 7th juror's comments)-- including creative thinking, analytical thinking, spacial reasoning, problem-solving. It's much easier to just listen tothe lawyers and accept their arguments! (The fact that the defense lawyer didn't do his job left it so that the jurors needed to be the creative problem-solvers!). Some of the jurors lack the courage to challenge others or go against them and think independently (#2? maybe #12?). Saying that "they don't really care" is too vague!! You need to see them each as individuals and notice their differences!
Well, to me the main problem was about the legal system, The little boy never had a chance of winning with that kind of lawyer. He never even tried to make the boy look good, all the case he brought seemed oddly unbelievable. To think that the boy was under an oath and looked as if he lied is very irritating. Even a young man who isn't a lawyer can convince a lot of men that the boy is not guilty, so why couldn't the lawyer? At the very beginning it was 11 to 1 and now 6 to 6, it is so very absurd. The lawyer was not good and the case itself was easy. It was very easy to judge the young man by his background alone even though you cannot judge people like that. It's not how courts should work and the prosecution didn't prove that he was guilty, the defence just didn't try to prove that he is not.
Good point. Rose really shows us the importance of a good and resonsible defense lawyer. Without such a lawyer, the jurors are left to "think for themselves": they need to be super and imaginative, basically to do work that they are not trained or prepared to do. This case, of course, in the end seems simple and clear. But I have read of many cases where a person (often black! uneducated!) has sat in jail for years and years until some lawyer volunteers and takes up his appeal and suddenly finds missing evidence or at least exposes the faulty or poor logic/work of the original defense lawyer. In this sense, the appeal process is very important. In the end, we are all only human and mistakes must certainly happen. (I even think about E. Olmert's words yesterday, before going into prison. He seems to claim that a mistake is being made even now, and that he hopes that, in time and with more perspective, he will be judged more fairly (from his perspective). Whether we agree with him or not, the point is that, yes, we are all humans and human judgement is not perfect. Is anyone really objective? Is it possible to be objective, truly?
I think that the main issue raised in the first act of the play is the issue of peer pressure. Eleven jurors voted “guilty” and only one voted “not guilty”. The 8th juror says that he voted not guilty because he wants to consider that possibility. During the first act of the play some of the other jurors change their minds. I think that the reason that they voted “guilty” in the first place was because they were affected by peer pressure. According to Wikipedia there are four responses to peer pressure:
ReplyDelete•Compliance – Disagreeing with the opinion of the group, but going along with the group opinion nonetheless.
•Conversion – Changing personal opinion to agree with the opinion of the group.
•Congruence – Agreeing with the opinion of the group from the onset.
•Non-Conformity – Either remaining independent (e.g., not succumbing to group pressure and maintaining personal opinion), or anti-conformity (purposefully expressing opinions contrary to the status quo).
I assume that the 8th Juror’s response is due to anti-conformity. He purposely expressed the opposite opinion to cause the jury to discuss it further. The response of the other jurors was originally due to Congruence, they agreed with the majority from the onset. However, their opinion changed over time because of the doubts raised in the discussion initiated by the 8th Juror. In the end of Act I some of the jurors were not influenced by peer pressure, but rather voted by what they believed or did not believe.
~Nadav~
Peer pressure -- and the ability to stand up for your convictions despite it-- is certainly shown in this play. The four different responses that you bring are so interesting.
DeleteI actually don't see the 8th jurors initial vote as an act of non-conformity, though. I mean, his point isn't just to "go against" the group. His point is to cause everyone to spend a few minutes at least thinking/talking about the case, since he seems to have some doubts. Is that just "due to anti-conformity"?
This play can certainly be analyzed, though, in the context of a larger discussion about peer pressure. Great idea, Nadav.
Nadav, I disagree with you.
ReplyDeleteI think that the main issue raised in this act is the unfairness of the boy’s trial. Starting from the beginning, the jurors’ duty is to choose one out of two dramatic options: To send a 16-year-old to the electric chair or send a possible murderer free. Y ’know what? That doesn’t sound fair to me. Like this isn’t enough, the boy’s lawyer is against his client himself. As the 7th juror says, “his own lawyer knew he didn’t stand a chance right from the beginning”. His lawyer has raised some pretty weak argument, like the claim that the boy’s knife fell out of his pocket. The only one who raises some smart ideas is the 8th juror. His ideas about the noise of the el train and the old man’s slow walk convinced the 5th, 9th and 11th jurors to vote “not guilty”. None of the boy’s lawyer’s arguments seems to convince a juror to change his mind.
Royee
Royee, How do you know that the boy's lawyer is against his client? That isn't exactly what the 7th juror said and, anyway, how reliable is the 7th juror as an interpreter of things? I think it is a difficult idea to defend. You might say that his lawyer was unskilled, or didn't present a great case . . . but I'm not sure that we can ascertain his motives. (But I'd love to hear your response.)
DeleteWhen you say that the unfairness of the trial is the point, so you mean that the play is showing how unfair the justice system can be towards certain people? Yes, I can certainly see this play being discussed in the context of such a discussion though, of course, the end of the play turns out well for the accused. If that's what it's about, then it is interseting that it focuses on the jurors, and not on the trial itself. Hmm. Maybe it shows how, despite racism and poor representation, the jury system can be a safeguard for justice? (I'm just thinking out loud here.) What do you think, now that we've (almost) finished the play?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI think that two of the first act's main ideas are the injustice of the justice system and the absurdity of the jury.
ReplyDeleteThe injustice of the justice system:
- At the beggining most of the juries, except the 8th, don't question the boy's guilt because of their prejudices about black people + the reputation of the boy's neighborhood.
- The boy's lawyer wasn't doing any effort in order to help him--> according to the juries he himself was SO convinced the boy is guilty that he didn't see any point in qestioning the prosecution.
- The boy couldn't replace his lawyer- maybe he couldn't afford himself someone better\ he didn't know he has this possibility.
The absurdity of the jury:
# The juries fight over stupid things- seating arrangement, who offended who...
# Most of the juries don't REALLY want to be there--> the 7th jorur wants to make it in time to some game and the others are just in a hurry to get the discussion done and go.
# The actions they do are childish :-P one chwes gum loudly, one doodles slogan abuot rice pops and almost all of them think (at list at the begining) that they know better than the others and don't really care about what they say.
Maya
Maya, make sure to be precise when you refer to details in the play.
Delete-- I do not think that there is evidence that all (or even most) of the jurors' initial "guilty" verdict is because of their racism. (And if it's not racism, then what caused them to think he's guilty? Perhaps other prejudices, or perhaps simply because they were convinced by the lawyers-- they didn't stop to question any of the evidence itself? maybe it is just that they are not active, critical thinkers, but believe what an "authority figure" tells them?)
-- We do not know that the boy's lawyer "wasn't [making] any effort to help him". Who says that? How many jurors agree with it? Is this an opinion that you find completely credible? if the lawyer did not do a fabulous job (and it seems that he didn't), what might other explanations be?
--Is it true that "most" of the jurors don't want to be there? go back and check who exactly is impatient and wants to leave.
-- I'm not sure that "almost all" don't care and aren't willing to listen and think about new ideas.
Be careful of generalizing like this. The meaning comes out of an appreciation of the details!
(And finally, make sure you understand the different between "juror" and "jury".)
It seems like you know what you’re talking about Maya. The injustice of the justice system and the absurdity of the jury…
ReplyDeleteThe boy didn't even knew all his rights on the court! I suppose nobody bothered to explain anything to him before the trial. Poor boy… The prejudice about his neighborhood with his and his family history, they didn't give him a chance. And you saw how the jury talked about him, one of them thinks that his baseball game is more important than the boy’s life. Their decision will determine the fate of the boy and they just want to finish with it and go. They didn't think for a second that this is real human's life.
Racism! I tell you, it is everywhere.
Arina
Arina, Your criticism is too general. Rose has given us 12 different men, each of whom has his own background, motives, personality. I am not sure that we can generalize as you do. Read my comment to Maya!
DeleteOne of the main ideas in Act 1 is prejudice and indifference. In the beginning of the play there is no reason to think that the boy didn’t kill his father, but then juror 8 explains all of the problems with the prosecution’s evidences. Yet, some of the juries, led by juror 3, still insist that the boy is guilty, with no doubt. We can see that their position is influenced by their life and their personality (for example, juror 3 is influenced by his child, and juror 7 is a cynical who care less about the boy’s life) but always of the facts. Their pride and prejudices might kill an innocent boy. During the play the jury changes their mind and sees the flaws in their former judgement.
ReplyDelete~~~~~Gal
I don't think that this play is about "pride and prejudice". Prejucide-- okay. But why pride? What you initially say–- indifference-- is better. Maybe it is about the dangers of prejudice and indifference in the justice system?
DeleteOne of the main ideas in Act 1 is how dinamic is the justice system. I mean, at the beggining everyone was convinced that the boy is guilty, and now, as they reveal more details, the opinion of part of them is being changed.
ReplyDeleteI think that this is the problem with the justice system- you need a fantastic lawyer so you would convince more people to be on your side, sometimes with missing and sometimes with adding details. Another problam with this jury is that not everyone cares (as Maya said before). They want to leave the little room and to go to watch a game for exaple. Sometimes the trial depens on people and since people tend to be prejudice, the system is not allways right, and it can harm people.
-Noga Nakash
Noga, I am not sure that the play clearly or specifically supports your idea that you need an excellent lawyer. It seems to me that the play can also be evidence of the opposite view. This boy clearly did not have a highly skilled lawyer, and yet is not found guilty by the jury.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHey Guys, what's up??
ReplyDeleteI think that the main issues in act I are the injustice of the justice system and the prejudism in it. XD
You see, threwout this all act J.8 tried to convince all the others that their first assumption might be wrong.
His fight with them meant more than the future of the kid. He tried to convey them something principal!!
This play isn't about the kid, it's about what happens in the jury, and we can see that at the end of this act there is a change- two more votes for "un-guilty", which means J.8's message was conveyd!! Yayyyy ;)
BTW: You know, they keep saying that the kid comes from a bad place and his record doesn't really help him either, and it's very easy to say that and go back to your good life (as they all do at first). So I must say that I'm very proud of J.8's morality, courage and tenacity!
-Shaked <3
Is the idea the injustice of the justice system? The justice system forces the jurors to keep struggling and trying to convince one another, and so it keeps them there past Act One (and, as we know, the boy does receive justice from the jury). Is the system prejudiced? Maybe, but how exactly is that shown in this play?
DeleteIt seems to me that the first act does show us the many different ways that people make decisions, and the different ways that their experiences, histories, personalities, and different prejudices influence their thinking.
I agree with you when you say that the play isn't about the accused but about what happens in the jury.
I think that the main idea in the first act is the indifference of the jury about the kid's life.
ReplyDeleteObviously the jurors care more about their own business than their very important job (to decide if a boy will live or not).
The fact that they decide in the beginning to let the boy die without any conversation is unreasonable and shocking so it's make the readers feel the injustice and think that it's not moral and very selfish thing to do.
We can see it in the story when one of the juror said that he rather to be mistake and let the boy die, than he will be mistake and the boy will kill people in the streets.
yuli
Which juror said that, Yuli? I think it is important to keep track of the different jurors and not to let them all become a blur. Each one has his different reasons for voting the way he does.
DeleteIndifference is a good word to bring to this discussion! But I guess that there are different versions of indifference in the jury. It might be interesting to ask what are the different causes of indifference? And how are these different causes shown in the play?
I think that one of the main idea in act 1 is that not all the jurors are takeing the case seriously enough, the most of them just want to get done with it and go back to their business, for example one of them want to done with the case quickly beacause he want to watch a game later that night, how can the jurors make justice if they doesn't pay attention to the all details and instead they are busy in the game?
ReplyDeleteItay
Is it true that "most of them" want to hurry through and get back to their jobs? I'm not sure.
DeleteIs it that they don't take the case seriously, or that they just aren't really thinking deeply about things? Maybe the first act shows us how most people don't think critically enough, and just believe things that "experts" tell them to believe? Hmmm. Right: how can any of us be responsible citizens if we don't pay attention to the details and think critically about them?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLike others , also I think that one of the main ideas in act 1 is the dynamic in the justice system. I think that the most important thing that written in act 1 was the introduction. In the introduction was written that the Judge said to the juries -"I urge you to deliberate honestly and thoughtfully... You are faced with a grave responsibility…". from this sentence we can learn how the justice system should behave. The play came to show us that this behavior did'nt exist in the justice system. We see in the play that the juries that were supposed to be objective were'nt objective, but rather subjective. The jurors's motivations and their conceptions of justice are influenced from their personalities and experiences. For example Juror number ten was affected from his prejudices about black people, and number three was affected from his relationship with his son and so on.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that was wrong in this case was the attitude of the boy's lawyer to the case. It seems that the boy's lawyer wasn't doing anything to help him, 'cause he was convinced the boy is guilty.
-Brechty-
Excellent ideas, Brechty. It is great to go back to the judge's directions and see the ideas that are raised there. The jurors are told to "deliberate honestly and thoughtfully". And you also chose to quote his final words, when he reminds the jurors that they "are faced with a grave responsiblity". So is this play an examination of how to deliberate honestly and thoughtfully? What does that mean, to "deliberate honestly and thoughtfully"? In the play, we see doubts raised, prejudices and fears exposed, accusations of laziness and impatience and insensitivity made. And slowly, slowly we see how logic and fairness prevails.
DeleteI agree with you, too, when you point out how the play shows how people's opinions and judgements are colored by their experiences and personalities. What sort of portrait emerges of each juror? What are the connections that Rose makes between the jurors' biographies and their opinions? That could be a good question to explore.
I am not sure that there is evidence that the boy's lawyer had a bad attitude. Are you sure about that? Are there any other possible explanations for his poor work in this case?
In the story "Twelve Angry Men", in the first act indicates an important issue about the legal system in 1957. In the beginning the judge instruct and urge the jury to decide "deliberate honesty and thoughtfully" because the life of the child is at stake!!!
ReplyDeleteI think this is an important point that most of the jury did not understand. All the time we can see evidence of impatience in the room, disrespect and misunderstanding of the importance of their word. In the beginning It was such a thoughtless decision for them that the 8th juror had to vote and fight for even just considering the other opinion.
Neomi.
[Neomi: notice that you forget the s at the end of verbs: the judge instructS and urgeS the jury . . ]
DeleteLike Brechty, you, too, have gone back to the judge's initial diretions to the jury. Excellent! YEs, so, has the jury fulfilled their obligations? Do they deliberate honestly and thoughtfully? (Read my comment to Brechty for more of my ideas about that.)
Hmmm. Maybe the play shows us how easily most of us are convinced of things, even when the evidence that is used is not good? Maybe the play comes to show us how hard we each have to work, to think, to ask questions, in order to be responsible citizens and to treat each other fairly?
In any case, I certainly agree with you (and many of your classmates) who see the first act as a demonstrations of most of the jurors' intellectual laziness and some of their resistence to changing their minds!
I think that two of the first act's main ideas are the system of the juries in the USA, and the power of the logical thinking.
ReplyDelete#The system of the juries and their injustice:
-The jurors are people from different societies and different education levels.
-The jury's verdict "stronger" than the the court's decision.
-The jury's verdict should be unanimous.
The judge's system is unjust as the jury's system because of the jurors does not take the jury seriously, they decide fast, and they do not use facts which change the verdict of the jury that change the human's life.
#The force of the logical thinking: the logical thinking of the 8th juror (the only juror that discusses the crime seriously and thinking) "helps" him to convince other three jurors (until act one) to change their mind and to vote unguilty. Using the evidence, thinking logically, taking the jury seriously and using the facts is the minimum that the juror needs to do. But no juror do that out of the 8th juror. The 8th juror shows the force and the power of the logical thinking.
Good. It is interesting, now, to rethink your ideas in light of Act 2 (in which justice is achieved, logical thinking overcomes intellectual laziness and prejudice and impatience and ignorance). By ending Act 1 where he did, Rose certainly makes us question the fairness of the American justice system, though the second act seems to reassure us that, in fact, the system works.
DeleteJamil, you are not using some of the terminology correctly. What do you mean by the "court's decision"? (I think you were saying this in class yesterday, too, and this was a source of my confusion.) There was a TRIAL. During the trial lawyers made their arguments, brought witnesses, and presented their cases. No decision is made in the courthouse at that time. When the lawyers finish presenting their cases, the jury then needs to make their decision, and that is the part of the process that is described in this play.
Although the play begins with the jurors seeming to make a quick decision, the fact that the jury needs to be unanimous prevented this jury from coming to a decision so quickly. And in fact, we see that within a single day (!), they -- as a whole -- are convinced by logic.
Yes, I agree: this play is certainly evidence of the power of logical thinking!!! And it also helps to show what helps or hinders logical thinking: personal experiences, prejudices, personalities.
It would be interesting to learn more about the advantages and disadvantages of juries that are made of one's peers and a jury made up of (projessional) judges.
I think like Itay in his first idea. one of the main ideas in the first act is the problems in the justice system, we can see that in the play when juror 8 trying to talk seriously but the other jurors don't take him so seriously as they supposed to do and no one is telling somthing about it.
ReplyDeleteHadas, You need to be more specific in determining a main idea (or theme). What "problems" are there? Is it true that no one takes Juror 8 seriously? (I don't think that is true.) Act One, it seems to me, shows exactly how a number of the jurors do take Juror 8 seriously. If we go back to the beginning, we see that it is really only Jurors 3, 7, and 10 that are trying to hurry through the process. Quite quickly (page 13!), Juror 9 begins to challenge Juror 10. Juror 12 makes a good suggestion of how to proceed and fulfill their responsibilities.
DeleteIt is true that most of the jurors have come to the jury room already convinced of the accused's guilt. They were convinced by the prosecutor's arguments.
So what exactly is the problem that you want to point out?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletetwo main ideas in act I are sceptical thinking and the jury power and flexibility.
ReplyDeletesceptcal thinking is presented in the story when #8 has a reasonable doubt and he says that the boy is not guilty, and slowly more people join him and it becomes even in the votes for guilty and not guilty. this brings me to the second idea, jury power and flexibility and that can be seen when the judge tell the jurors that the life of someone is based on their verdict so they must be absolutly sure about ther desicion because they dont want to send an innocent man to jail.
Aviv
[Aviv, don't forget the 's for possessive form, the apostrophe in contractions [don't], and the S on verbs [when the judge tellS the jurors]
DeleteI don't know what you mean by "jury power" ("the jury's power"). How is that a main idea? Maybe you are saying that the first act emphasizes the"grave responsibility" that the judge mentions in his opening remarks? Okay. And what does it say about it?
YOu mention skeptical thinking. So the play shows the value of it? Or it shows how most people don't automatically use it?
The juror number 2 is the quietest juror among the jury, who takes his time to feel comfortable enough to participate in the discussion. He is a shy guy, and he really does not talk a lot. It seems that he actually speaks and responds to comments in the room, his sentences are disjointed and hesitant and his intentions are unclear. He avoided any definitive determinations and usually his opening words are "I guess…". Juror number 2 is easily swayed and usually adopts the opinion of the last person to whom he has spoken. His arguments are unfounded or reasoned and he finds it difficult to explain his views.
ReplyDeleteOmer
Yes, Juror 2 is a quiet man, perhaps shy. Does he change his opinion? (Can you show exactly where?) He does seem to take his responsibility as a juror seriously and listens and considers everything that is said. Right? In the end, he even initiates a new line of thinking.
DeleteI think that the main idea of the play is to show the complexity and the inter-human encounter that exist in every jury ,one way or another. The boy's trial is not the central motif. The play wants to show "behind the scenes" and hidden difficult sides of the judiciary
ReplyDeleteOmer
Interesting. So the play shows us how juries work. Can you be more specific? What exactly are the difficulties? What makes the jury's work complex? And what exactly does this play (as opposed to other plays and stories and books about trials and juries) highlight in the inter-human encounter? Again, you need to take acount of details in your discussion. It is easy to relate to things on a very general level, but for a discussion to have substance, we need to have noticed and analyzed details.
DeleteBoy oh boy, I have to admit that to identify a couple of main ideas from the first act seems like a rather unnecessary task, especially since my fellow jurors did such a good job, but the hell with it.
ReplyDeleteI think that one of the main issues that pop up in act 1 is the indifference of people to human suffering. As we all know, the old Masters were never wrong about it, and nither do I when I say that some people can't look beyond their own noses even in a case of deciding if someone is alive or dead! (even if it's a scum like him).
Gali Alon.
Identifying main ideas is never unnecessary! :-) Some questions that arise from your comments are:
DeleteHow does this play show the indifference to human suffering?
What does this play say about the sources/causes of people's indifference?
Can this play help us to understand the sources of our indifference? (this is just another way of asking the previous question)
How does the jury system protect an accused person against the possible indifference of jurors?
Your implicit comparison with Auden's poem is FABULOUS! So let's ask some real questions!
How does this play (as a whole) support Auden's main idea? HOw does it contradict it?
One of the main ideas in the play is that the jurors prejudge the trialed boy. They automatically decide that he is guilty without hesitating for a moment. Luckily, there is still one juror that thinks the trial was unfair and that maybe there is a chance that the boy didn't kill his father. the objection of this juror to the common assumption that the boy had killed his father caused a conflict which develops the story of the play.
ReplyDeleteNiv ☻
I do not think that the play proposes that all the jurors prejudge him: most of them seem to have arrived at their conclusions during the trial. Don't forget, we don't watch the trial itself. At the very beginning, both the 11th and 12th jurors talk about how good the prosecuting attourney was. This leads me to conclude that they were convinced by his arguments (and not by prejudice).
DeleteIn my opinion, one of the main issues that are discussed in act one is the problems with the American judiciary system, and mainly with the jury. Supposedly, everyone who gets to the court has the right to a jury of his peers, who can't gain anything of the results of the trail and doesn't hold anything against him (the accused). But, as we can see in the play, many of the jurors don't really care what will happen to him and some even want him to die, just because of prejudice. The fact that the whole play takes place inside of a closed room with just the jurors in it shows us that what really matters in this system is the politics between the jurors and not the case itself. Everything that ever happened to each juror influences his opinion and acts. I think that the 11th juror, who is a foreign man, is written in the play in order to show us the tension between how America wants its system to work (how he understands it) and what really happens. This is conveyed perfectly in two times he speaks: what should happen- "I don't believe I have to be loyal to one side or the other. I am simply asking questions"; what really happens- "Facts may be colored by the personalities of the people who present them".
ReplyDeleteAnd therefore, again, the main issue of act one is the problems with the American judiciary system.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteYou have connected the play with the right of every citizen to an "impartial jury". Great. Is there such a thing? What does that mean, exactly? What does the play tell us about this concept?
DeleteYou focus on the setting of the play, that it all takes place within a closed room, and you bring this as evidence that the play is about the dynamics between the jurors and not the case itself. Good point.
You focus on Juror 11 and an analylsis of his character. Great. It might be interesting to analyze each character: what does Rose tell us about each? How can we understand each juror's behavior according to his own biography?
Does the play focus on the problems with the American judiciary system or the strengths? What problems does the play show us? What strengths?
I think that one of the main issues that is brought up in the story, is the fact that no one can have a truly fair trial. A trail is based on the “objective” opinion of the judge\jury. But can anyone be truly objective? Of course not! We all have our stories and our history to change our mind, sets up apart from other people. SO, how can we create trial that would be fair in our society? And how can it be fair to the ones who need the justice most and have the last chances to get them?
ReplyDeleteSharon Litvin
Does the boy receive a fair trial (in the end)? How does the trial/jury system (the American judicial system) try to ensure fairness?
DeleteWhat insights does this play give us into the subjective/objective opinion debate? Is there such a thing as objectivity? (I guess that that question would bring us into the realm of philosophy.)
How exactly does Rose show us the connection between people's experiences/histories/personalities and their opinions and judgements?
Other questions that arise from your comments:
What changes have been made in the judicial system (American or Israeli) that help to ensure fairness?
Does Rose's play support the main ideas proposed by Glaspell's play/short story?
I think the main idea in the story is that the jurors don't really care about the boy's life. At the beginning they vote guilty without even talk about the kid's case, because they wanted to go back to their business (one juror wants to finish fast because he wants to go to a baseball game). Without juror 8, they would decide that the boy is guilty and send him to his death. Only after juror 8 talks, they start to think more brightly and discuss the boy's case.
ReplyDeleteDor Shaul
Dor, I do not think you can find evidence that "the jurors don't really care about the boy's life". While that may be true about a few of the jurors, it is not necessarily true of the others. Each juror has his own story and his own motives for voting as he does. There are different factors that influence each one. Most think that they have arrived at their verdicts objectively: they've listened to the lawyers arguments and they've been persuaded. But what influences them? Of course, we've identified how some are biased and even prejudiced. But others just have poor thinking skills (read Shimshon's analysis of the 7th juror's use of baseball terminology, especially the end, where he talks about one of the 7th juror's comments)-- including creative thinking, analytical thinking, spacial reasoning, problem-solving. It's much easier to just listen tothe lawyers and accept their arguments! (The fact that the defense lawyer didn't do his job left it so that the jurors needed to be the creative problem-solvers!). Some of the jurors lack the courage to challenge others or go against them and think independently (#2? maybe #12?). Saying that "they don't really care" is too vague!! You need to see them each as individuals and notice their differences!
DeleteWell, to me the main problem was about the legal system, The little boy never had a chance of winning with that kind of lawyer. He never even tried to make the boy look good, all the case he brought seemed oddly unbelievable. To think that the boy was under an oath and looked as if he lied is very irritating. Even a young man who isn't a lawyer can convince a lot of men that the boy is not guilty, so why couldn't the lawyer? At the very beginning it was 11 to 1 and now 6 to 6, it is so very absurd. The lawyer was not good and the case itself was easy. It was very easy to judge the young man by his background alone even though you cannot judge people like that. It's not how courts should work and the prosecution didn't prove that he was guilty, the defence just didn't try to prove that he is not.
ReplyDeleteGood point. Rose really shows us the importance of a good and resonsible defense lawyer. Without such a lawyer, the jurors are left to "think for themselves": they need to be super and imaginative, basically to do work that they are not trained or prepared to do.
DeleteThis case, of course, in the end seems simple and clear. But I have read of many cases where a person (often black! uneducated!) has sat in jail for years and years until some lawyer volunteers and takes up his appeal and suddenly finds missing evidence or at least exposes the faulty or poor logic/work of the original defense lawyer. In this sense, the appeal process is very important.
In the end, we are all only human and mistakes must certainly happen. (I even think about E. Olmert's words yesterday, before going into prison. He seems to claim that a mistake is being made even now, and that he hopes that, in time and with more perspective, he will be judged more fairly (from his perspective). Whether we agree with him or not, the point is that, yes, we are all humans and human judgement is not perfect. Is anyone really objective? Is it possible to be objective, truly?
aaa
ReplyDelete