‘The 8th Juror is able to change the minds of the eleven other jurors not because he is right but
because he is persuasive.’ Discuss
‘Suppose you talk us all outa this {a guilty verdict},’ says the 6th Juror, ‘and the kid really did knife his
father?’ Rose makes it plain that the 8th is tormented by this possibility, intending the audience of
Twelve Angry Men to feel that his intention is not to ‘soft soap’ the other jurors as the 7th states,
making them change their minds for the sake of it, but because he has real reasonable doubt based
on logical and reasoned deductions and that he as but to present his doubts in such a manner that
they must agree with him on logical grounds. Yet the 8th is a very intuitive and socially adept man
and so in presenting his ideas he at times uses all sorts of persuasive techniques as well as some
startling additional and legally doubtful physical evidence to make his ideas convincing. At times the
8th Juror is both persuasive and correct in presenting his ideas, but at other moments there is
evidence to suggest that coercion, emotional manipulation and possibly illegal additional evidence
are more significant in swaying other juror’s minds than a logical and reasoned examination of the
case as argued in court. It should also be acknowledged that the 6th Juror is being too simplistic
when he assigns so much power to the 8th Juror. It is not the latter alone who changes the minds of
the other Jurors. Rose shows that many other factors play a part in the Jurors’ decision making such
as personal prejudice, peer pressure and individual personality traits.
However, at times the audience is forced to question the way the 8th Juror presents his ideas. There
is evidence to suggest that he can be is coercive, emotionally manipulative and even heedless of the
law in his attempts to ensure the other Jurors agree with him. It should however, be acknowledged
that the 6th Juror is being too simplistic when he assigns so much power to the 8th Juror. It is not the
latter alone who changes the minds of the other Jurors. Rose shows that many other factors play a
part in the Jurors’ decision making such as personal prejudice, peer pressure and individual
personality traits.
It is certainly true that without the presence of the 8th Juror in Twelve Angry Men a sixteen year old
boy may have been found guilty and sentenced to death. Combining logic, reason, persuasive skills
and appeals to sympathy in his fellow jurors, the 8th Juror
However, it is also true to say that the 8th juror is not the sole reason why the eleven other jurors
finally decided to join him in deciding the boy is not guilty.
W
Without the presence of the 8th Juror in Twelve Angry Men it seems likely that a sixteen year old
would have been executed. The 8th Juror’s crucial role in changing the views of the other jurors is
obvious to the audience and it is clear that some of the arguments the 8th Juror presents to prove his
belief that the boy must be acquitted on grounds of ‘reasonable doubt’, are well thought through
and founded on logic and reason making them seem just in the audience’s and juror’s eyes.
However, at times it could be argued that the 8th Juror’s persuasive powers are really what sway the
other juror’s minds rather than reasonable and truthful deductions. Taking all of these points into
account, it is also important to add that no one person can be held totally accountable for changing
another’s mind. The eleven other jurors also change their opinions for a range of reasons such as
doubts raised by themselves and other jurors, personal experience and prejudice, personality traits,
innate intelligence and peer pressure.
Some of the most logically argued and thus compelling arguments for reasonable doubt are
developed by the 8th Juror. One example of this is the discussion of the old man’s ability to hear the
boy shout and a body fall. Combining two witnesses’ testimony and bringing in the experience of
Juror 6 allows the 8th Juror to show that it is highly probable that the passing six-car el train made it
too noisy for this witness to clearly hear anything. Another example of the 8th Juror making
compelling use of logic is when, with the help of the plan of the old man’s flat and a carefully timed
re-enactment of events, he shows that it was unlikely the old man had time to get to the door of his
flat to see anyone run away from the scene of the crime. It is perhaps not surprising that after this
re-enactment two of the jurors change their vote to not guilty. It is clear that the 8th Juror has sound
reasons for his verdict of not guilty.
Despite the 8th Juror’s clear respect for logic and reason it could be said that he also heavily relies
upon more questionable persuasive techniques. The 9th Juror is for instance not swayed by logic and
truth, but by the 8th Juror’s ‘gamble’ of agreeing to change his verdict if no one changes their mind in
a second vote. One could argue that this is entirely unethical and possibly illegal behaviour by the
8th Juror; if no one had voted ‘not guilty’ he would have had to lie and go against his conscience and
been the key reason a boy went to his death. However it is certainly a very persuasive technique as
it forces the jurors to question the logic of their beliefs as the possibility of the boy’s death becomes
very real in their minds. The 8th Juror is also happy to break the law when he brings an identical knife
to the murder weapon into the jury room to provide physical evidence to back up his claim that,
‘…it’s possible that the boy lost the knife and that someone else stabbed his father with a similar
knife.’ Not only is it ‘against the law to buy or sell switch-blade knives’ as pointed out by the 4th Juror,
it could also be considered ethically unsound to bring the knife into the jury room as the jurors are
supposed to only consider the evidence presented to them in court. Although his claim has some
validity, by backing it up in such a vivid dramatic manner he could be accused of manipulating the
jurors, trying to make them forget that that ‘It would still be an incredible coincidence for another
person to have stabbed the father with the same kind of knife,’ as pointed out by the 11th Juror.
The 8th Juror is also particularly adept at reading and manipulating the emotions of his fellow jurors
to promote his views or using ‘soft sell’ techniques as the 7th Juror cynically puts it. The boy’s history
of misdemeanours and conflict with his father and other institutions is seen by some of the jurors as
further evidence of his guilt, but the 8th juror uses this history to gain sympathy for the defendant,
saying, ‘He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years. I think maybe we owe him a few words.’ Similarly he
putting himself ‘in the shoes’ of the defendant, inviting the other jurors to do the same and also feel
that they too might have insisted on another lawyer. Although the 8th juror is happy to prejudice
the jurors favourably towards the defendant, he is quick to criticise prejudice in others. He points
out to the 10th juror that it is inconsistent to dismiss the boy, because of his socio-economic
background, but believe the female witness saying, ‘She’s one of “them”, too, isn’t she?” and he
confronts the 3rd Juror saying ‘You want to see this boy die because you personally want it, not
because of the facts’ at the end of Act I and reminding him at the end of the play, ‘It’s not your boy.
He’s somebody else.’
Although some of the 8th Juror’s techniques could be said to be questionable he is the catalyst for
proper debate in the jury room and by the middle of the play reasoned discussion of the evidence
starts to be driven by a range of other jurors. The 11th for instance questions why the boy left the
murder weapon at the scene of the crime and the 5th is the instigator of the discussion of how long it
took the old man to get to his front door to supposedly view the boy run away. Thus it could be
argued that it is only the 9th and 5th jurors that are mainly swayed by the 8th’s words; the remaining
jurors are influenced by others in the jury room. Clearly too factors outside the influence of the 8th
juror play a big part in the jurors’ decision making. For instance, the 3rd Juror finally agrees to a ‘not
guilty’ verdict when he separates his personal prejudices from the defendant and the 10th Juror is so
saturated in prejudice and competitive instincts that he only agrees with the others because he feels
isolated and beaten; he seems incapable of reasoned and logical thought.
At the end of the play, the audience is left pondering many aspects of the play such as whether the
boy was guilty, what really constitutes a reliable fact, whether everything that occurred in the jury
room was strictly legal and how much the jurors were persuaded by the ‘soft sell’ of Juror 8. Yet the
audience is content that by the end of the play justice has been done and that though sometimes
manipulative in his persuasive powers the 8th Juror was right; there is sufficient reasonable doubt to
grant one sixteen year old boy the freedom to live.