ipl-logo

Nothing Is Fair In Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose

877 Words4 Pages

Nothing is fair in life. The boy did not have a fair jury for several reasons. In the play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose a nineteen year old boy is accused of premeditated homicide for his father. Twelve jurors must make the groundbreaking decision that decides whether or not the boy goes off to execution. In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose the accused did not have a fair jury because the jurors messed up the voting, knew the boy’s criminal background, and had personal connections to the case.
One reason the boy did not have a fair jury was because the jurors rushed the voting. All of the jurors were already tired of the long trial, and had other plans, “This better be fast. I’ve got tickets to The Seven Year Itch tonight” (Twelve …show more content…

They use it as an argument to vote guilty. If this was a typical jury, this would be a mistrial. In the case of a mistrial the court must find a new group of people and restart the trial. Since the jury did not report this it makes the entire situation illegal, thus unfair.
The last reason the jury was unfair was because the juros had personal connections to the case. Three shares that, “I’ve got a kid. When he was eight years old he ran away from a fight. I saw him. I was so ashamed...Rotten Kid!” (Twelve Angry Men). Juror three had a child who ran away from a fight. Three was so angry he hit him until he became a “man”. It is very clear that juror three seems to hate all children. Again, this forms a bias. Juros are not allowed to have personal connections to the case. Since three hates all kids, he will vote guilty. Five brings up that, “I’ve lived in a slum all my life” (Twelve Angry Men) Juror number four says that all people who grew up in slums are “breeding grounds for criminals” and “menaces to society”. Five takes personal offense to this insult. Now, five starts to feel empathy for the child. He feels the pain the child went through growing in the slums. Everyone believes they are horrible people. The case is unfair because five lets personal connections influence his

Show More
Related
502 Words | 3 Pages

His own son hasn’t seen him in years and he want to take out his anger on whoever he can, which just so happens to be the kid on trial. Juror Three’s feelings led him to be prejudice against the kid on trial. At the very end, he becomes visibly upset and give his final verdict, not

Read More
432 Words | 2 Pages

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.

Read More
333 Words | 2 Pages

In the drama, “Twelve Angry Men,” by Reginald Rose. A 19 year old boy is a suspect in the murdering of his father. A jury of twelve men is left to decide his fate, guilty or not guilty. Juror 10 is biased and a hypocrite, which helped them reach a unanimous vote of not guilty.

Read More
708 Words | 3 Pages

Juror eight believes that the kid is innocent but the rest do not agree. He has to try to convince the others while they keep putting him down and telling him that it's obvious that the kid is guilty. Juror ten says, “Look, we’re all grown-ups here. We heard the facts, didn’t we?

Read More
276 Words | 2 Pages

They don’t know what truth is” (Ross 59). When Juror 10 says these things we can see how his prejudice affects his ability to discover the truth. Many of the other jurors show no real sign of bias when discussing the innocence or guiltiness of the kid. For example, near the end of the play Juror 4 states, “I still believe the boy is guilty of murder. I’ll tell you why.

Read More
755 Words | 4 Pages

Though juror 3 has been adamant on the guilt of the young boy it is safe to say that this case meant more to him because the relationship with his son is similar to the relationship between the boy and the father. Since his personal vendetta causes him to forcefully accuse the boy of murder it leaves the jury 11-1 in favor of not guilty. Since carefully reviewing the movie it becomes very prevalent that there has not been enough substantial evidence to convict the boy of murder. Furthermore, with the usage of group think all of the men, accept juror 3 are able to put their pride aside and vote what they truly believe the verdict should be, which is not guilty. Though, one of the more pragmatic points in the film happens after juror 3 becomes infuriated after realizing that all of the men are voting not guilty.

Read More
690 Words | 3 Pages

The third juror continually mentions how kids are not respectful and how some are just “rotten,” he also is immediate in his “guilty” verdict from the beginning. His disposition towards “bad kids” appears to leak into his decision making, as he attempts to state and agree with every point that can be used to treat the defendant as guilty. The juror is one of the few that are determined on a guilty verdict for the accused and is the last juror to hold this stance until the end of the story. His prejudice against the defendant from his own experiences with his kid is called out in the final scene of the play. Juror three goes on a rant about how he is the “only one who sees” that the kid and all other kids are the same and rotten; where he is only stopped when juror eight says, “It’s not your boy.

Read More
702 Words | 3 Pages

An example of this would be when Juror 3 mentioned he hasn't spoken to his son in three years, so he is anxious to blame 'rotten kids' for all the world's problems. When his son was eight and walked away from a fight, he was ashamed. So, he beat him 'to make a man out of him.' He believes that his child is unappreciative of his dedication. Despite taking the trial personally, Juror 3 is the first to warn Juror 5 not to take things personally when Juror 10 criticizes children from low-income communities.

Read More
803 Words | 4 Pages

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

Read More
1346 Words | 6 Pages

Juror 3 has his heart set that the boy is guilty, only because his own son left him years ago. In the movie he explains, I 've got a kid. When he was eight years old, he ran away from a fight. I saw him. I was so ashamed, I told him right out, ‘I 'm gonna make a man out of you or I 'm gonna bust you up into little pieces trying.’

Read More
591 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
814 Words | 4 Pages

‘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.

Read More
915 Words | 4 Pages

People act upon what they think. Within “12 Angry Men”, all of the jurors have an opinion but some voice their more than others. One juror in particular, Juror Ten, voices his opinion about the boy in question. Repeatedly throughout the play, Juror Ten makes many thoughtless and hurtful comments about a certain kind of people. It is clear that Juror Ten’s uncompromising belief that the accused is guilty is because of his dislike for the boy’s race.

Read More
1404 Words | 6 Pages

The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar

Read More
1232 Words | 5 Pages

(1:01:20) "It's 5 after 6, let's get some dinner." (1:12:35) Schemas & Stereotypes influenced the Juror’s thinking. Many of the jurors had stereotypes about kids who grow up in slums—and who belong to certain minority groups. Not only did these stereotypes influence the jurors’ tendency to make internal attributions for the boy’s behavior, but these stereotypes also led to biased interpretations of the evidence.

Read More

More about Nothing Is Fair In Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose

Related Topics

Open Document