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

Open Document