No matter the motives of any juror, each can be traced back to Juror Eight, and the fact that he was brave enough to stand against the crowd. In the end, every juror eventually reached the verdict of not guilty, but there was still a very long process to get there, and many people that produced the answers for the others. Juror Eight is the only reason anyone in this play made a single sound, and he may have eventually been brought down if Juror Nine hadn’t changed his vote to support him. They worked as a team, with Juror Five soon joining in, Juror Eight had an incredible impact on everyone in that room, and he is the reason a boy who was most likely innocent was set
In 12 Angry Men, Juror Three’s past negative experiences with his kid affect how he acts during the trial. In Act I, Juror Three mentions how he had a bad relationship with his kid. He talks about how much he hates kids, specifically his. In this scene, Juror Three is letting out his anger on this case. Juror Eight also says “Perhaps you’d like to pull the switch” (42).
I believe people do have a tendency to allow their prejudices to direct their decisions. People have their prejudices, feel they are right and go along with that feeling. A great example of this is Juror Three in Twelve Angry Men. He believed the boy murdered his father because he felt he did it.
Juror 9’s Diverse Perspective In Reginald Rose’s 1950s play, “Twelve Angry Men,” Juror 9’s knowledge and age are used to demonstrate the value of diverse perspectives throughout the play. In the beginning of the play, Juror 11 is described as “...a mild, gentle old man, long since defeated by life, and now merely waiting to die” (Rose Page 5). Juror 9 is a quiet old man and shows that through Act 1, all that is known is this little description in the notes.
This proves that he is not afraid to have a disagreement with other jurors. Moreover, he fights for justice against the other jurors’ prejudices. It is clear that the members of the jury had already made up their minds when they first walk into the
In the play 12 Angry Men, a murder case is being reviewed by a jury. This jury must decide if a kid who killed his father is guilty or not. Two jurors that were on opposing sides for most of the play was Juror Eight and Juror Three. The reason they were on opposing sides was because Juror Three believed the kid was guilty, while Juror Eight believed there was not enough evidence to convict him. Most of the jurors wanted to settle on having reasonable doubt, so another jury could be called in.
One way that Juror 10 helped the other jurors reach a unanimous decision is when Juror 8 is talking about how the kid doesn’t have a good life, Juror 10 says, “‘I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say.’” This shows that Juror 10 is biased towards people in the slums, and thinks they can’t be trusted. The other jurors don’t like what he’s saying. Juror 9 thinks it is very dangerous to be saying that, and thinks he’s wrong.
In Reginald Rose’s play, Twelve Angry Men, he depicts a story of 12 jurors quarreling to decide the fate of a 19-year-old boy who stands accused of murdering his father. Juror 3, a stubborn man characterized by his dogmatic and uncompromising personality, is one of those jurors. Rose uses Juror 3, along with his prejudices, past, and the clashing of opinions, to demonstrate the themes of personal accountability and diverse experiences. When debating if the boy should get a second chance because of his unfortunate past, Juror 3 mentions his son “When he was fifteen he hit me in the face” (Rose 20). Juror 3’s past illuminates how his personal biases affect his judgment toward the boy.
In the court system, jurors are tasked with the duty to conduct a fair verdict based on the testimony given and additional evidence shown. Some may forget this responsibility and use their prejudices that affect the juror's decision on the defendant's future. As a result, the accused may be falsely convicted and lose the majority of their life. The play 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose shows three perfect examples of prejudices during jury duty such as colorism, classism, and ageism.
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.
According to Webster's dictionary, a juror takes an oath of allegiance to serve on a jury to determine if a defendant is innocent or guilty of a particular crime. Jurors are supposed to remain unbiased and open minded when dealing with a defendant, however some jurors do not. In the play 12 angry men written by Reginald Rose jurors 10 and 3 are examples of bad jurors because they both show heavy bias against the defendant. In the book 12 angry men jurors play a key role in whether the defendant lives.
In a testament to both his own stubbornness and loyalty to the guilty cause, Juror #10 rebuffs every argument made by the not guilty party. Equally important, Juror #3 is willfully obtuse to the revelations made by the other jurors, marking him as the twelfth and final juror to vote not guilty. In the end, it takes the other men demanding his line of thinking for him to finally declare “not guilty” (Rose 115). Juror #3, being the main antagonist, is stuck in his pessimistic mindset and refuses to change his decision regarding the defendant’s fate. At times, it’s clear he is blowing off rationale for the sake of maintaining his guilty verdict.
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.
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.
Juror Ten announces his intentions very early in the play. He speaks loudly and forcefully from the beginning, clearly showing his racism and prejudice towards the boy. Juror 10 quickly votes guilty and asserts that the defendant cannot be believed because “they’re born liars”. Additionally, he claims that the “kids who crawl outa those places are real trash.”
