Juror Three In Twelve Angry Men

In the three act play, Twelve Angry Men, two jurors specifically let their characteristics get the best of them in deciding on whether the boy was guilty or not. The strongest personality of them all was in Juror Three. Juror Three was described as a very forceful and opinionated man. He believed that there was no opinion more right than his own and refused to consider the thoughts and beliefs of those surrounding him. From the very beginning of the play, he came on strong with the undoubting belief that the boy was guilty. His personality shone through with every point that he attempted to make, highlighting the hatred in his tone toward the boy and other jurors. Near the end of Act II, he remarked:

Tell him…You come in here with your heart

It may have been because of his own disobeying son that he had commented on earlier in the play that built up resentment towards the boy, but the audience will never know for sure. He was a distasteful man that seemingly found interest in watching others feel pain for the benefit of his own ego. Due to his opinionated and downright rude personality, Juror Three let his stubbornness get the best of him and neglected to consider changing his vote after his mind was made up. This attribute made it difficult for the jurors to come to a final decision and continued to create conflict throughout the play. Many jurors initiated conflicts throughout the play other than Juror Three, including Juror

Juror Ten was a simple man to figure out. He spoke in a way that told the audience and the other jurors that he cared about no opinion other than his own. He must have made up his mind before he even heard the boy’s story that he was guilty, because right from the start he belittled the boy in an insulting way. The man was racist, which ultimately made up his mind about how he thought about the boy. Near the beginning of the play he commented on the boy by saying, ‘“...You’re not going to tell us that we’re supposed to believe him, knowing what he is. I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say. You know that’” (Rose, 16). For the majority of the play, he stood by his belief that the boy was guilty strictly because of his race. Near the end of the play, he went on an angry tangent that highlighted his views even more clearly for the other jurors, turning them away from him and his beliefs. His view on the case was heavily swayed by his own opinions and bigotry. Up until the very end, he was sold on the fact that the boy was guilty with no reason to back it up other than due to his race. Overall, the jurors each had their own personalities that caused their views on the case to be distorted into something that would fit their own beliefs and caused conflict throughout the play. There were many factors that contributed to those conflicts along with the idea