12 Angry Men Summary and Analysis of Act One (Part 2)

— Summary of Act One (Part 2)– Immediately, the jurors switch on fifth Juror, implicating him of having actually changed his vote out of sympathy for the kid. 9th Juror stands and admits to having actually changed his vote because he wish to hear the arguments out. The guys take a break. We find out that the 11th juror is a German watchmaker. 12th Juror works for an advertisement firm. 8th Juror is an architect, and 7th Juror offers marmalade.

8th Juror presents numerous theoretical circumstances, based upon the daddy’s criminal background, that could have gotten him eliminated that evening. Next, he tries to discount the testimony by the old male living downstairs by deducing that, since of the noise made by the elevated train death by, there’s no other way he could have heard with certainty screaming and a body hitting the flooring. 9th Juror identifies with the poor old male, believing that he may simply be attempting to feel crucial. 8th Juror concludes by saying that even if he did hear him say, “I’m gon na eliminate you,” that extremely well might be secured of context as just a figure of speech. With this 5th Juror changes his vote to “not guilty,” and the vote is 9-3 in favor of guilty.

11th Juror raises another question of why the young boy would return house, a number of hours after his dad had actually been killed, if he had actually been the one to murder him. 4th Juror suggests that he left the knife in a state of panic and after that decided to come back for it later on, however 11th Juror difficulties this by reminding him that the finger prints had actually been wiped off the knife, suggesting that the killer left calmly. There is more concern over the accuracy of the witnesses, and an argument breaks out. 8th Juror calls for another vote. This time, 5th, 8th, 9th, and 11th vote “not guilty,” and the deliberation continues.

After a quick argument, 8th Juror brings into concern whether or not the downstairs neighbor, an old male who had suffered a stroke and could only walk slowly, could have gotten to the door to see the kid diminish the stairs in fifteen seconds, as he had testified. 8th Juror recreates the layout of the apartment or condo, while 2nd Juror times him, and they conclude that he would not have actually been able to reach his door in fifteen seconds.

3rd Juror reacts strongly to this, calling it unethical, stating that this kid had “got to burn.” 8th Juror calls him a “self-appointed public avenger” and a “sadist,” and 3rd leaps at him. Restrained by the other males, he yells, “God damn it! I’ll eliminate him! I’ll kill him.” 8th Juror asks, “You do not really imply you’ll kill me, do you?” proving his earlier point about how people say, “I’ll kill you,” when they don’t truly indicate it.

— Analysis of Act One (Part 2)– In this area, the play begins to divide its jurors into 3 classifications. First, 8th Juror stands alone as fighting for the kid. Now, one may include 9th Juror in this, as he does rapidly become a supporter for the kid, after hearing a few of 8th Juror’s arguments. Second, there are jurors who do presume the accused to be guilty, but aren’t belligerent about their beliefs, just encouraged that he is guilty. This would include second, fourth, 5th, 6th, 11th, and 12th Jurors. 3rd, 7th, and 10th Jurors appear especially prejudiced or indifferent versus the kid and are unmoved by the arguments of the others in this very first act. For them, it is higher than merely altering their mind about the case; it needs them to challenge concepts held deep within themselves.

8th Juror is clearly set up by Rose as the protagonist. He is identified as level-headed and reasonable. At the beginning of the play, he is considering the case seriously, with due factor to consider, instead of a lot of the other jurors who treat it frivolously or don’t appear to care much at all. When the vote is taken, he votes “not guilty,” not because he is particular of the kid’s innocence, which would be a difficult sell by any account, but he merely says, “I do not understand.” He wants to talk through the case and see what conclusion they find, rather than jumping to a guilty verdict. We are clearly indicated to view him as doing the right, though challenging, thing. He is a classic hero, faced by what appears to be an overwhelming obstacle, to encourage these guys. In this very first act, we see him stay stoic and steadfast in his mission for justice, in the face of much opposition and nastiness, embodying an American perfect.

Moreover, the scope of the play broadens to end up being about how individuals come to decisions. The private psychologies of the jury members engage in an extremely intricate manner. Previously in the act, it appeared really clear that it is a group of men versus 8th Juror, and that group appeared to talk to one voice, utilizing the very same logic. However, as the play progresses, we see that each of the jurors came to their decision in an extremely different manner. Second Juror appears to have actually been swayed merely by the tone of the courtroom, which is reflective of his characterization as meek, maybe prone to popular impact. We are encouraged to believe that 3rd Juror’s viewpoint is influenced by his bad relationship with his kid, and 4th Juror seems to be entirely reliant upon the truths of the case. Here, the group psychology breaks down into the private psychology. Where this group of eleven found it so simple to convict him collectively, it ends up being harder for them, as their individual beliefs and inspirations are prosecuted.

You Might Also Like