"Don 't judge a book by its cover" is a famous saying that some of us heard it before and some of us experienced it. 12 jurors were experiencing this quote when they gathered to decide whether a young boy is guilty by killing his father or not. Juror 2 stated, "Well, anyway, I think he was guilty" (6). Juror 2 represent most of us, as sometimes we judge from what we hear and not from what we see. The 12 jurors are from various backgrounds and each one has a distinctive personality.
In the book 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose’s the author tells a story of 12 men who have to determine the verdict of a young man who is on trial for 1st degree murder. The 12 men discuss the case to find out that many of them are convicting this kid from emotion and prejudice against the boy who is on trial. Analyzing prejudice on a larger scale we can understand that it is not always about race, Juror number three is prejudice against the defendant because of his age. Twelve angry men has multiple ways of showing us how prejudice can affect our judgment and how it is hard to change someone's mind who is only open to their own opinions, the jury is able to get passed their prejudice only by being confronted by the facts .
Juror Nine votes not guilty because he admires Juror Eight for standing alone against the majority. Once the jurors start to discuss the case again Juror Seven questions who else would have the motive to kill this boy’s father. Juror Eight rebuts by saying, “As far as I know, we’re supposed to decide whether or not the boy on trial is guilty. We’re not concerned with anyone else’s motives here” (Rose 240).
In Rose’s play this is shown when Juror 7 changes his vote to not-guilty just to change things up. This upsets many of the others and Juror 11 says, “You have no right to play like this with a man’s life” (63). Juror 7 changed his votes for personal reasons and through this Rose demonstrates that the jury is imperfect because people are imperfect. In the very end of the book, the imperfections within the judicial system are strongly illustrated when the final verdict is decided.
Twelve Correct Jurors ¨Murder in the first degree… premeditated homicide… is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts¨ (Rose, 9). A 19-year-old ¨boy¨ is on trial for the gruesome stabbing of his father. In Twelve Angry Men adapted by Reginald Rose, the jurors came to the right decision; in this case, with the evidence presented, the 19-year-old man is innocent! The woman who testified couldn't have seen it, the old man couldn't have heard it, and a trained knife fighter—like the man was—wouldn't have left a stab wound like the one left in the man´s father.
Conviction Conviction is when you make a formal declaration that someone is guilty of a criminal offense. In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a young boy is accused of murdering his father. The Jurors all think that he is guilty except for the eighth juror. The eighth juror has to try to convince the other jurors not to convict the boy. The jurors have to use someone's word to decide if the boy was guilty or not.
Through this statement, Juror Four has touched on a common behavior that people with bad upbringings display. The three-act play “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is set in a jury room on a day of unbearable heat in which twelve male jurors gather around to discuss the evidence and testimonies of witnesses of a six-day murder trial. As time progresses, tempers flare due to the unbearable heat and the temperaments of certain jurors. Once they are all seated all the jurors are ready to vote guilty because they all having other places to be, except for one, Juror Eight. Juror Eight cites that the boy deserves a few words to be said about his case.
He claims “you can’t believe a word they say. I mean, they’re born liars (13).” Already, this juror blinded by prejudice and racism, calling a group of peoples “them.” Juror 10 feigns ignorance by believing
In the play ‘Twelve Angry Men’, the jury begins its deliberations with a vote of 11-1 in favor of guilty and ends 12-0 in favor of not guilty. From this, we might conclude that the jury started with false certainty and deliberated until they uncovered the certain truth. However, the jury is never able to establish whether or not the defendant is innocent. Rather than uncovering certainty, their deliberations uncover doubt—enough doubt that they do not feel that the evidence is enough to convict the defendant “beyond a reasonable doubt.” I am aware that the role of ways of knowing such as language and emotion in influencing the jury is not to be ignored; however, even the slightest thread of doubt changed the jury’s verdict.
This process continues throughout the course of the movie, and each juror’s biases is slowly revealed. Earlier through the movie, it is already justifiable to label juror 10 as a bigoted racist as he reveals strong racist tendencies against the defendant, stating his only reason for voting guilty is the boy’s ethnicity and background. . Another interesting aspect of this 1957 film is the “reverse prejudice” portrayed by juror
Imagine getting that one dreaded letter in the mail, calling you to do the one thing you didn’t plan the week before your wedding, JURY DUTY. Reginald Rose wrote the play Twelve Angry Men for a television drama after he sat on a jury. The characters in this play are identified not by names but by numbers. Twelve men are confined to a deliberation room after the trial of a 19-year-old boy accused of stabbing and killing his father. Twelve Angry Men illustrates the many dangers of the jury system like, a biased jury, being left with questions, and feeling inconvenienced by jury duty.
Throughout the play 12 Angry Men, jurors use reasonable doubt; previous knowledge or opinion of a topic, to influence the opinions of other jurors. Personal insight used by Juror eight, juror 9, Juror 5, Juror 8, and Juror 2 influence other jurors by changing their opinions and their reasoning behind that vote. For Instance, Juror eight exhibits how the old man 's testimony is not valid. He demonstrates the old man walking from his bedroom, down the hall, and down the steps, just in time to witness the boy stab his father.
He acts as a perfect counterpart to juror number 8, two people who are both trying to do good. They just come to different conclusions of what good is. Juror number 4 isn’t biased against the young man. In fact, once the evidence points to inconclusive, he changes his vote. The last juror to vote guilty based solely on logic and evidence.
The juror’s emotions affected their belief by putting the boy onto the chair. Juror number 3 was convinced that the teenage boy was guilty. This was due to his past experiences within his family; the rage that he had towards his past created a very one-sided belief. Therefore, juror number 3 let his emotions choose the side he would be on. His emotions gathered up anger, frustration and family rage leading him to ignore the rest of the information provided.
While watching the movie 12 Angry Men, the viewer can clearly see that the jurors are all different. The differences of the jurors is an essential part of determining a verdict. When they walk through the door the jurors can not be expected to leave all of their personal biases and personalities behind. The jurors then enter with their distinguishable personalities and biases. Juror number 10 uses a lot of stereotypes to make his decisions on whether or not the accused is really guilty or innocent.
