Zaahir Mendha

Professor Currey
English 1301 S61
First Draft
Title: Comparison/Contrast Essay
Juror 8, Henry Fonda and Juror 3, Lee J. Cobb are the two jurors who I think are the best fit for
comparison. These two characters in the movie play a role with exactly opposite judgments and
opinions. In this movie, Juror 8 plays a role of a juror named Davis. Juror 3 stands alone as the
only juror to vote the boy as not guilty of his fathers murder when initial voting takes place at
the start of the meeting. All other 11 jurors vote for the boy as guilty for the crime. Eventually,
Juror 8 is successful in convincing the jurors to discuss the stance of the boy and conduct a fair
trial without judgment. However, Juror 3 is the only one in the end who is against Henry and the
only one in the last to still not accept that the boy is not guilty. Therefore, these two jurors are
somewhat opposite in their judgments than the rest of the jurors and therefore I would like to
compare these two.
The movie is about a 19 year old boy who is accused and is on trial for the
murder of his unsophisticated father. A jury of 12 men is gathered in a room on the instructions
of the judge for contemplation in order to decide the destiny of the young boy. As the
conversation of the jurors begins, all the jurors are asked to vote in the beginning as if the boy is
guilty or not. All the jurors vote that the boy is guilty except for Juror 8. It seems that all the
jurors are certain that the boy is guilty and do not want to give any time for discussion. However,

Juror 8 claims that he is not sure that if the boy is innocent but insists that the boy should not be
sentenced to death right away without first talking about the case.
Juror 8 and Juror 3 have different occupations and personalities. Juror 8 is an
architect, whereas Juror 3 is a businessman. Juror 8 is more of a kind of positive person who
thinks from every side of the story and fights for the boy as he said in the movie I am not sure if
the boy is innocent, but I would say that we just cannot send a boy to die without talking about it
first. This shows that he is a thoughtful and sensitive person. On the other hand, Juror 3 is a type
of opinionated and judgmental person who sticks to his judgments based on his past claims that
the boy is guilty of charges and that there is no room of discussion in here. He said All the
evidences are against the boy, how we can think that the boy is not guilty?
The other important difference in Juror 8 and Juror 3 is prejudice towards the
defendant. Juror 8 is calm, reasonable and brings no prejudice and serves as a vital example of
how a juror is supposed to be like whereas Juror 3s personal experiences with his son cause him
to argue that the young man is guilty and Juror 3 is not able to keep his personal prejudice aside.
Juror 8 is a person who entered the trial with an open mind, feels for others, keeps himself in the
boys shoes to get a better understanding of his situation. . Conversely, Juror 3 is a distraught
father and his supposition is based on his intimate experiences. He compares the boy in trial with
his own son, with whom he was estranged. He had troubled relation with his son and that is what
preoccupies his thoughts.
Juror 8s approach to trial is logical. He keeps all the evidences on the table and
tries to look at it from every perspective. For instance, when all the jurors said that the murder
was done from a knife which was one of a kind, Juror 8 presented an identical knife, breaking

the claim that the knife is a unique one. Moreover, he even questioned the evidence of the old
man, the victims neighbor who claimed that he got to his door in fifteen seconds and saw the
boy escaping. Juror 8 proved that the old man could not have reach the door in fifteen seconds as
an old man and a patient of stroke cannot walk that fast. He approached all the evidences in a
pensive manner and tried to explain all the jurors in a calm manner. Contrarily, Juror 3 is a
person who is stubborn with a temper as he screamed and accused other jurors of being crazy
when they changed their vote of boy being guilty to not guilty. When Juror 8 proved the
evidence wrong that the old man would have not reached the door in 15 seconds, Juror 3 ended
up reacting violently and tried to attack Henry saying God damn it, Ill kill him! Ill kill him.
At the end of the movie when all the jurors voted for the boy as not guilty,
Juror 3 remained firm and steadfast on his decision as that the boy was guilty. However, other
jurors made a final request to him to overcome his personal traits and so Juror 3 agreed and voted
the boy as not guilty and the discussion ended.