12AM Flashcards
After the final verdict is reached of not guilty, with much relief, juror 3 rises, juror 8 helps him on w his jacket
- w courage, sensitivity, perseverance and by working w the spirit of citizenship, Am’s can establish fundamental equality which is the bedrock of AM society
- the matter of the verdict is X a personal matter - J3+J8 = both AM men doing their civic duty
Confronting the remaining 3 j’s still voting guilty, J8 condemns the way “prejudice obscures the truth”.
praising the way that “reasonable doubt acts as a safeguard that has an enormous value in our system”
- w courage, sensitivity, perseverance and by working w the spirit of citizenship, Am’s can establish fundamental equality
- J8 is stalwart + intent on seeing justice carried out appropriately / resolutely defends democracy and the rights to a free trial
J10, a demoralising juror who viscously attacks the other jurors of the case, condems immigrants’ “difference”, + bc of this “they don’t need any big excuse to kill someone”
-“they” = enforces the division of typical Am’s and ‘their’ minority
- racist and derogatory personal bias undermines a common id diversity b/w Ams ultimately forces juror to confront their own prejudice
- other juror revolted ☞ physically distance self + offer their back as a condemnatory mark of intolerance for j10s racism
Juror 3, a fairly bigoted juror, approaches case w a fixed idea of instant guilt bc of personal bias which interferes his rationality and civic duties, last to change his mind after convinced by respectable and level-headed J8 who enlightens him that the defendant “Is not [his] boy.” Where J3 then “Let’s him live”
as “Not guilty”
- approaches case w a fixed idea bc of r/ship w son = overpowers his rationality
- lets own struggles interfere with innocence of young boys life = X uphold Am values of citizenship
J7 @ J11 after j11 contradicts him
“I’m telling ya, they’re all alike”
“Comes to this country running for him life [then] he’s telling us how to run the show”
- J7 X accept as AM citizen J11 bc of immigrant stat
- prejudice and discrimination make him petty = prevents him form being reasoned
- racism depicted as a sickness / other J’s refuse to be inflicted w intolerance
As J10 justifies his decision to keep voting guilty through an outburst of racist remarks and physical violence, he declares that if “we don’t smack them down, then they are gonna own us”
- J10 constant referral to racist remarks acts as a physical malady / dichotomy implies isn’t AM enough + doesn’t fit into materialistic standard t/f X deserve justice
- racism stems from fear of loss of power and control / take over
- racism depicted as a sickness / other J’s refuse to be inflicted w intolerance
J11 admirable of “democracy” declares that the outcome of the innocent boy “should not made a personal thing”
- sig J11 says this bc immigrant who has experienced prejudice and racism - knows reality w out democracy
- acts as a icon of freedom embodied as the idea od USA is a safe haven thus is admirable of the USA
As j11 shares his reasoning juror 3 confronts him to question “what side are you on?” By stressing the value of freedom of speech and democracy, J 11 replies that he doesn’t ‘have to be loyal to one side or another, [he] is simply just asking questions”
- J3 = angry and paranoid ☞ accusatory of other jurors
- J3 sense of aggression and lack of control is in contrast to to reason required of good citizens
- J 11 X born in AM, but as an imm, keenly feels the need to uphold the democratic values that make their county worth admiring = spirit of citizenship
J11 immigrant representative of the case, changes his vote to ‘not guilty’ as an argument brews. He stresses the importance of freedom of speech as a man “in this country” who should be “entitled to have unpopular opinions”.
-Ionically J11 a man who has suffered life without the reality of democratic systems ☞ understands the importance of Am ideals
- freedom of speech = am admirable
- ‘in this country’ - appreciates core values of AM democracy + systems bc of oppressive restrictions in Germany
At the end of act 1 J3 outrageous outburst stemming from his own personal bias held w pain + anger towards his son, acted as a weakness in which he berated “for this kid, you bet I’d like to pull the switch”
- important defendant = guilty ☞ to justify his feelings towards his son/closure
- warning to aud that personal animosity ☞ overrides civic duty/responsibility
before discussion even begins, J7 flippant and apathetic, reveals personal bias is present before conversation has begun as he carelessly states “this better be fast, I got tickets to a ball game tonight”.
- apathy and impatience = threatens am ideals ☞ weakness
- j7 used as warning to aud
j9 courageously changes his vote to not guilty in the second vote, after the recognising courage from j8 to “stand alone against the ridicule of others”
- j9 has a reasonable doubt / believes defendant has the right to a fair trial
- j8 is appreciative and supportive of j9s integrity ☞ X afraid of ridicule / uphold Am ideals representative of Roses values of providing justice with courage and integrity
j3 angry and paranoid, overwhelmed w an outburst of accusations towards J5 changing his vote, J3 apologies; “look, I was a little excited. I didn’t mean to get too nasty”
- j3 prep bc he thinks j5 was supporting “not guilty’ vote
- j3 sense of aggression + lack of control is in contrast to reason req. of good citizens
- personal weakness threatens am ideals
