ipl-logo

12 Angry Men By Reginald Rose

536 Words3 Pages

12 angry men is a play written in 1954 by Reginald Rose. America's 1950's was an extremely racial tense period due to the Civil Rights Movement and enforced segregation. Rose suggests personal prejudice prevents jurors from completing their civic duty. Rose shows that juror 10 is a racially prejudiced individual and prevents other jurors from evaluating the evidence that is shown to them. Rose shows that juror 10 is a racially prejudiced individual and prevents other jurors from evaluating the evidence that is shown. Juror 10 has a personal prejudice against people of colour. 'These people are born to lie.' Juror 10’s beliefs are demonstrating examples of xenophobia. All jurors must side on either guilt or not guilty in order to complete the trial therefore Juror 10 rants on about how they’re ‘liars’, ‘pigs’, ‘murderers’. Without any explanation behind his beliefs, except for his personal prejudice brought …show more content…

Juror 3 believes that all youth are dangerous and immature, encouraging how personal prejudice obscures the truth, but later on realises he’s wrong. ‘I told him, I'll make a man out of you.’ Throughout the play juror 3 is stuck on the belief that the ids ‘ Is guilty’ this belief prevents juror 3 from believin the facts that are presented to him. Juror 3 had an argument with his son which made him flee from home. ‘Its the lids, the way they are nowas=days. Angry!’ Juror 3 yells and screams about his personal opinions preventing the jurors from thinking e=clearly, as their thoughts worsen in the hot environment. This effect prevents the jurors from deciding whether the kid isn’t guilty with ethical assumptions. Juror 3 has to be pressured by all the facts and other juror for him to realise the kid is not guilty. Family complications affect juror 3’s opinions therefore also affecting the other jurors. Juror 3 uses his personal beliefs to affect the emotions of the other

Show More
Related
186 Words | 1 Pages

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.

Read More
681 Words | 3 Pages

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

Read More
708 Words | 3 Pages

Juror eight believes that the kid is innocent but the rest do not agree. He has to try to convince the others while they keep putting him down and telling him that it's obvious that the kid is guilty. Juror ten says, “Look, we’re all grown-ups here. We heard the facts, didn’t we?

Read More
755 Words | 4 Pages

Though juror 3 has been adamant on the guilt of the young boy it is safe to say that this case meant more to him because the relationship with his son is similar to the relationship between the boy and the father. Since his personal vendetta causes him to forcefully accuse the boy of murder it leaves the jury 11-1 in favor of not guilty. Since carefully reviewing the movie it becomes very prevalent that there has not been enough substantial evidence to convict the boy of murder. Furthermore, with the usage of group think all of the men, accept juror 3 are able to put their pride aside and vote what they truly believe the verdict should be, which is not guilty. Though, one of the more pragmatic points in the film happens after juror 3 becomes infuriated after realizing that all of the men are voting not guilty.

Read More
690 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
318 Words | 2 Pages

The play “12 Angry Men” is a drama that was written by Reginald Rose. The play is about 12 men who have never met to figure out if the boy on trial is guilty of killing his own father. In fact, juror number Nine changed his vote because he believed eight had something in mind. In the play “12 Angry Men” the one juror that stood out the most was Nine because if he did not change his vote the kid would be in jail. One way Nine shows that he is kind and lonely is in different ways.

Read More
410 Words | 2 Pages

By the end of the play, they came to an anonymous decision that the boy was acquitted. In this play, Juror 10’s influence impacted the vote becoming unanimous in favor of not guilty because he was prejudiced as well as hypocritical. In this dramatic play, Juror 10 has been prejudged and hypocritical to impact the vote in favor of not guilty. By

Read More
507 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
1016 Words | 5 Pages

In the novel, 12 jurors were deciding whether a boy who is accused of killing his father is guilty or not. The jurors in the room, especially 3. Juror created a perception that the boy was guilty. Nearly all of the jurors thought that the boy was guilty except 8. Juror.

Read More
803 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More
591 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
583 Words | 3 Pages

When juror three says “he hit me”,this is important because it shows juror thinks that kids who don’t listen to their parents are either from a slum neighborhood or are slum kids. He also compares his son to the boy without realizing it and judges the boy without even knowing him formally. This shows his internal conflict of anger with his son. Juror 5 also has past experiences that affect his decision making. “I used to play in a backyard filled with garbage.

Read More
814 Words | 4 Pages

‘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.

Read More
915 Words | 4 Pages

Throughout the whole play, Juror Ten remains stubborn in his decision that the defendant is guilty. Yet, at the end the finally sees that there is reasonable doubt (62). Interestingly enough, on the previous page Juror Ten is called out by Juror Four (60). The foreman also has some prejudice at the beginning of the case. He brings up another case that is similar to the one they are doing.

Read More
1404 Words | 6 Pages

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

Read More

More about 12 Angry Men By Reginald Rose

Related Topics

Open Document