Conformity In Reginald Rose's Play 'Twelve Angry Men'

In Reginald Rose’s play Twelve Angry Men, the story dives into a jury in a conflict of choosing the verdict of a murder trial. The jury is in a hot room fueled by heated arguments and discussions on whether the young man is guilty or innocent. At the beginning of the decision process, the majority had decided that the boy was guilty of murder, but Juror #8 contested otherwise. Throughout the play, Juror #8 maintains his conformist views that altered the outcome of the court case. Furthermore, the argument set by how jurors decided the final verdict is shown in Twelve Angry Men by how they are challenged through the idea of conformity and nonconformity. Conformity in Twelve Angry Men is displayed by jurors using their priorities to establish

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. Moreover, Juror #8 had moments where he was at risk of danger by being the opposing view, such as when Juror #3 almost stabbed him when demonstrating how the accused could have struck the father with the knife, but his nonconformity stood solid throughout the play, even when he had to face the cruel actions and