‘12 Angry Men’ is a story about a jury that has plenty of different personalities. Reginald Rose is trying to show that the United States’ legal system is not the right way because it is exceedingly difficult. The jurors are debating whether a child is guilty or not. One particular juror, Juror 10, thinks that the child is guilty, and he is not willing to change his answer until the end when he still thinks that the child is guilty. Juror 10 does not deserve a spot on a jury because he is horribly racist, does not have flexibility of thought, and does not listen to evidence.
A juror that always cares about justice is Juror 8. Juror 8 says, “It’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.”(12 Angry Men, 21) He is showing that he cares about justice and he knows that it is the right thing to do. Juror 10 does not act like this. He says, “Brother, you can say that again. The kids who crawl outta those places are real trash. I don’t want any
…show more content…
He does this everytime when Juror 8 tries to make a good point. This is just like when he said, “ I don’t understand you people. I mean, all these picky little points you keep bringing up. They don’t mean nothing. How can you believe his story? You’re an intelligent man. Well, you’re not gonna tell me you’re not. You know the facts of life.”(12 Angry Men, 72) Juror 10 is being stubborn and thinks that he is always right. Even if the evidence is strong Juror 10 will not listen to it. Juror 8 says, “Now he had to get up out of bed, walk twelve feet, open the bedroom door, walk forty-three feet and open the front door—all in fifteen seconds. Do you think he could have done it?”(12 Angry Men, 52) Juror 10 responds, “Sure he coulda done it.”(12 Angry Men, 52) When Juror 8 tested this it took him forty-two seconds, but then Juror 10 started talking about how slow Juror 8 was walking and that it does not mean