12 Angry Men By Reginald Rose

This detachment within the Juror, ignoring the life of another person, and choosing not to vote without spending the time to discuss the situation, which may have ended up with the unjust death of an innocent boy. Juror 7 immediately brushes off the severity of the situation, relating to a matter of “anything” when it is in fact anything

In each vote the jury held, Juror #8, since the beginning, had a different view than everyone else because he was “not certain that the evidence was sufficiently clear” to make a final decision on the first vote (Cunningham 112). Even though everyone stood against him, he was “devoted to justice and act[ed] with integrity” no matter what the rest of the jury said to him (Aubrey). As Juror #8 continued making points and having the other jurors look deeper into the facts, the “wiser and more emotionally stable jurors” altered their verdict (Cunningham 112). For example, Jurors #4 and #11 changed their ruling when Juror #8 presented not-so-obvious facts, like the lady’s glasses markings. However, jurors with less empathy, like Jurors #7 and #10, never opened their minds to the possibility that the facts presented in court were false or altered.

Biases are like mechanical pencils. One’s biases may be hidden, but enough pushes will lead them into revealing their hidden prejudices. Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a play that focuses on crime and drama. It tells the story of twelve jurors working together to decide on the fate of a young boy. Through conflicts, agreements, and biases, they must come together to decide on one thing: whether the boy is guilty or innocent.

In a testament to both his own stubbornness and loyalty to the guilty cause, Juror #10 rebuffs every argument made by the not guilty party. Equally important, Juror #3 is willfully obtuse to the revelations made by the other jurors, marking him as the twelfth and final juror to vote not guilty. In the end, it takes the other men demanding his line of thinking for him to finally declare “not guilty” (Rose 115). Juror #3, being the main antagonist, is stuck in his pessimistic mindset and refuses to change his decision regarding the defendant’s fate. At times, it’s clear he is blowing off rationale for the sake of maintaining his guilty verdict.

Juror #3’s son affected how he saw the facts of the case due to their relationship. Juror #’s son left his father and he sees it as his son's fault. “... When he was fifteen he hit me in the face. … I haven't seen in three years.

Juror Three is an angry, frustrated and a small minded person that wants this kid to be punished for the sole reason that 3’s own kid beat him and ran away, so three is a very hateful person to the kid on trial even though he doesn’t even know him. The vote is 11-1 in favor of not guilty, three is the only juror to vote not guilty, and he is persistent with the facts that the other jurors have proved could be false, so in a rant he yells at the jurors that they are wrong and the kid is guilty, until eight says something that makes him change in an instant. Juror Three states, “That goddamn rotten kid. I know him. What they're like.

For example, Juror 3 is convinced that the boy is guilty because he has a strained relationship with his own son. He projects his own feelings of anger and resentment onto the boy, and argues that he must be guilty based on his own experiences. Juror 10 is

Jury duty is often seen as an option people are seeking to avoid at times. However, jury duty should not be seen as a negative, but rather jury duty should be seen as a chance for a civilian to do their part in contributing to justice. Twelve Angry Men is mainly about twelve men coming together to discuss and argue whether a young man should be put on the death penalty, the play continuously makes it a point to make the jurors have a hard time deciding a final verdict. Jurors argued their side of what occurred with the defendant and the victim, some would change their answers or few would make a point of trying to convince the other jurors why the defendant is guilty. As the act progresses, the jurors finally realize one important detail of

“12 Angry Men,” by Reginald Rose, is a dramatic play. Twelve jurors were sent into a jury room to decide the destiny of a 19-year-old boy. Distressingly, he was convicted of murdering his father. At the beginning of the play, the jurors take a vote, and every juror votes guilty; except Juror 8. Throughout the play, they disprove different testimonies such as an old man's testimony and a stab wound.

As the play went on, Juror Eight started proving how the boy was innocent. In the end Juror Eight changed all the other juror’s minds, except for Juror Three’s. Juror Three ended up changing his vote, not because they changed his mind but because he gave into peer pressure. He still had his prejudice influenced decision, he only gave in because he didn't want it to be a hung jury. Another example, from the same play, is Juror Eight.

The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar

The third juror continually mentions how kids are not respectful and how some are just “rotten,” he also is immediate in his “guilty” verdict from the beginning. His disposition towards “bad kids” appears to leak into his decision making, as he attempts to state and agree with every point that can be used to treat the defendant as guilty. The juror is one of the few that are determined on a guilty verdict for the accused and is the last juror to hold this stance until the end of the story. His prejudice against the defendant from his own experiences with his kid is called out in the final scene of the play. Juror three goes on a rant about how he is the “only one who sees” that the kid and all other kids are the same and rotten; where he is only stopped when juror eight says, “It’s not your boy.

‘Twelve Angry Men’ written by Reginald Rose, is based on the story of a jury who have to come together to determine the fate of a young boy accused to have murdered his own father. Initially, eleven of the jurors vote not guilty with one of the juror being uncertain of the evidence put before them. As the men argue over the different pieces of evidence, the insanity begins to make sense and the decision becomes clearer as they vote several other times. Rose creates drama and tension in the jury room, clearly exploring through the many issues of prejudice, integrity and compassion, in gaining true justice towards the accused victim. These aspects have been revealed through three character who are Juror 10, Juror 8 and Juror 3.

In 12 Angry Men, the movie begins in a courtroom where the case is being discussed by the judge, who seems fairly uninterested. The jurors are then instructed to enter the jury room to begin their deliberations. They take a vote and all but juror 8 vote guilty. The jurors react violently to the dissenting vote but ultimately decide to go around the table in hope of convincing the 8th juror.

The justice system that relies on twelve individuals reaching a life-or-death decision has many complications and dangers. The play Twelve Angry Men, by Reiginald Rose, illustrates the dangers of a justice system that relies on twelve people reaching a life-or-death decision because people are biased, they think of a jury system as an inconvenience, and many people aren’t as intelligent as others. The first reason why Reiginald illustrates dangers is because people can be biased or they can stereotype the defendant. The Jurors in Twelve Angry Men relate to this because a few of them were biased and several of them stereotyped the defendant for being from the slums. The defendant in this play was a 19 year old kid from the slums.