How It All Began As the jurors step into the room, all 12 minds are set on the idea that without a doubt, the man in question has killed his father; all except one. More follow suit as the original mastermind stands up to the majority, and that majority soon becomes a minority. All endings do start with a beginning though, and that beginning is Juror Eight, who steps up to the challenge of becoming a justice seeker, and soon, others follow. In “Twelve Angry Men”, a play formed by Reginald Rose, Juror Eight is our shining protagonist, looking only to create fairness in the court of law.
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.
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.
Haylee Hulse Ms. Bryce Honors English Period 2 The Innocent I never thought I’d change my vote, but they made me believe. In this jury, everything seemed to point towards the boy being guilty, but one juror would not let this boy go to jail without giving him a fair trial. Juror 8 is the definition of an optimistic person. He decided that even though everything pointed obviously towards the bad, that he was going to look at the good.
He realizes this when he “contorts [his face] and he begins to pound on [the] table with his fist,” and “seems [to be] about to cry” (Rose 63). This is when Juror 3 realizes that his negative experience with his son has dictated his distaste toward the boy and that he had no real reason to oppose him as much as he did. Though being the most stubborn of the jurors, being able to re-examine the beliefs and opinions he is so fixated on empowers Juror 3 to be able to demonstrate personal accountability, showing how important personal accountability is to confronting one’s past and biases. Throughout the play, because of his loud and opinionated personality, Juror 3 assumes leadership of those voting guilty. This is in stark contrast to Juror 8, a thoughtful person who is willing to give the benefit of the doubt who is the first person to vote not guilty to give the boy a chance.
While all of the other men have changed their vote to a not guilty verdict, the third jurors remains with his original belief. Even in the very end of the play, he acts hostile against the others trying to change his mind, in saying “Do you think I’m an idiot or something?” (Rose 72). One juror that seems almost impervious to argumentative fallacies and peer pressure is Juror 8. Juror almost displays the ideal juror, and the rest tend to mimic the flaws of the system.
(293) The jurors meet all applicable characteristics listed by Johnson, “considering alternatives” “gathering additional information” carefully weighing risks” and “discussing important moral issues” . I believe juror number three has a locus of control in which he not only thinks but knows with certainty that with enough shouting and even physical intimidation he can control everyone and every situation. This is demonstrated when he speaks of his relationship with his son, “…when he was nine he ran away from a fight, I saw it, I was so embarrassed I almost threw up. I said, I’m gonna make a man outta you if I have to break you in two trying…well, I made a man outta him”.
Rose uses these examples to illustrate how much of Juror 3’s personal issues can twist his mind into thinking worse of the defendant. Secondly, Rose highlights the notion that you can have different kinds of prejudice in the jury room, and this can change people’s
12 Angry Men is a play written by Reginald Rose. The play tells of a sixteen year old boy that was tried for premeditated first degree manslaughter and the twelve men on the jury who discussed the verdict. The unanimous decision ultimately would decide the boy’s fate of life or death. The twelve jurors all had very different and important parts in the discussion of the ruling. Rose incorporated dialogue between Juror 10 and the other jurors to contribute to the idea of prejudice obscuring the truth.
Throughout the play, the jurors are faced with the temptation to conform to the opinions of others, particularly the dominant figure of Juror 8. However, Juror 8's determination to consider all the evidence before
You know that.” (Sergel 17). In the same way, this juror heavily believes his interpretation of what the kid is like, a criminal, he stereotypes the boy due to his own experiences. As a juror, people are allowed to point out what you may believe are some factors that need to be considered, which is why this can be a reason to consider jury
This process continues throughout the course of the movie, and each juror’s biases is slowly revealed. Earlier through the movie, it is already justifiable to label juror 10 as a bigoted racist as he reveals strong racist tendencies against the defendant, stating his only reason for voting guilty is the boy’s ethnicity and background. . Another interesting aspect of this 1957 film is the “reverse prejudice” portrayed by 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.
‘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.
