12 Angry Men Rhetorical Analysis

Emily Moritz

Miss Champion

Kirkwood Comp 2

May 4th, 2023

Grounded in Reason; Credible in Experience

Persuasion is merely reasonable manipulation, with its foundations built on the stances of pathos, logos, or ethos. By the nature of resolving disagreements, persuasion has become a necessary part of explaining one’s views or convincing another of those views. However, this does not come without convolutions, uncertainty, or retaliation. This is demonstrated well in the 1957 play, 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose. The play, which revolves around 12 jurors as they deliberate upon a murder trial, is rife with various expressions of persuasion and conviction. Within the third act of the play, there are two scenes that display compelling expressions

The results reveal that the jury is now split six to six, with Juror Eleven, Juror Two, and Juror Six having changed their votes to not guilty. When asked to elaborate, Juror Six states the following, “‘It would seem that the old man did not see the boy run downstairs … And if the boy did scream that he was going to kill, then we have the authority of this man…to prove that it might not really mean he's going to kill.’” (Rose, 46). The man in question is Juror Three, who inadvertently proved at the end of act two that people don’t always mean what they yell in anger. Juror Two also had this to say, “‘He…seems so sure. And he has made a number of good points. While he…only gets mad and insults everybody.’” (Rose, 48). The first individual referred to is Juror Eight, while the latter is Juror Three. Both of these quotes reveal that a combination of ethos and logos is being employed to convince the jury. The logical walkthrough of the events of the murder allowed Juror Eight to calmly explain his points, in turn making himself appear far more credible than the hot-headed Juror Three. This persuasive tactic is also mirrored later in the act, although by a different jury

At this point, several jurors are unsure what to think, as another reenactment of events has reaffirmed some belief in the guilt of the defendant. This additional pressure is also what helps the following rebuttal be impactful. Juror Five states the following, “‘Switch knives came with the neighborhood where I lived… Anyone who's ever used a switch knife would never have stabbed downward…You use it underhanded.’” (Rose, 56). He makes it clear that, unlike the other jurors, he has personally witnessed how real knife fights are conducted. It validates his point that the defendant, who was proficient in switch knives, wouldn't have stabbed downwards. This is a logical argument, as the logistics of how a knife fighter would stab is a valid hole in the guilty argument. Combined with more debate on the intelligence of the defendant, the position of reasonable doubt is strengthened. Thus the vote is swung in favor of acquittal, with nine to three