Injustice In Twelve Angry Men

866 Words4 Pages

Twelve Angry Men At the beginning of the Twelve Angry Men play the jurors were about to end the case, the minor being convicted of second degree murder of his own father. The juror’s attitude towards the information given of the murder case was ignorant and created injustice within the play. It took a juror numerous explanations and back up information to amend the injustice to a fair case. Reginald Rose conveys the theme of injustice throughout with a static and a dynamic character that try to resolve the external conflicts with a persuasive tone in Twelve Angry Men. Reginald Rose’s static and dynamic characters in Twelve Angry Men, help give the readers a deep understanding of the injustice theme. The postponement of further proceedings in the trial gave the jury some time to decide whether the boy was going to be convicted of the murder or not. When the jurors gathered to make a decision only one of them voted “not guilty”, making this …show more content…

Being the juror that leads the case and play even if the rest of the men do not agree with him. Due to the rest of the jurors not agreeing with jurors eight, the character had to explain himself and for that to be successful he needed to prove that the facts given of the case were right, so he went off and stood in the boys shoes. As juror eight presented his explanations, point of view in the case, and proves to the other men that boy might not be guilty, juror eight was able to persuade the rest of the jurors and that is why this play has a persuasion tone. Injustice being the strongest theme of twelve Angry men, it contributes with the plays tone because of the men that are against the protagonists way of thinking, the men and their verbal irony and also their impatience made the case for the boy lack fairness. At the end of the Twelve Angry men injustice is still being part of the play because one man still thought