12 Angry Men Being Alone Essay

After reading Twelve Angry Men, many questions have been raised. One such question is why being in alone more beneficial than being in a group. This question has been raised many times in the book as well as many times in history. Being alone isolates a person from his or her peers but, many people have seen benefit to be alone to help do things such as voice their opinions or to help bring change. For instance, in Twelve Angry Men, we are introduced to twelve diverse jurors who are arguing about whether a boy had murdered his father. Over the course of the book, we see how the jurors get agitated, specifically towards juror eight, who believes that the boy is not guilty, going against the views of the rest of the juror. Many of the jurors are extremely biased and are true to their views. He realizes how precarious his position is but he still decides to continue fighting. Juror eight is

In Twelve Angry Men, being in a group made many of the jurors ignorant about what was happening. The jurors believed that because they were banded together, they could persuade juror eight over to their side easily. That was not the case. Being in a group also made the jurors desensitized to what their effects may be. They did not see the boy’s life as important because many of them had wanted to leave as quickly as possible and also because they felt as if the boy’s death would not be solely caused by them. In the town of Salem in 1692, the mass hysteria of the witch trials caused many of the citizens to join together in an effort to eradicate the “witches”of Salem. When a person was accused of being a witch, the rest of the citizens would point fingers at the accused in an effort to remove that person. Many people did not want to help protect those accused because they would in turn be accused. In this situation, joining a group caused more pain and suffering to the people