Stereotypes In Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose

When indisputable evidence is presented, would time be spent to double check this evidence? Especially when the fate of another’s life is in your hands? During that choice would stereotypes and prejudices be placed aside in order to choose that fate? The answer can be drawn from within Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose as it entertains while teaching lessons that one day could change the fate of a total stranger as the drama and the need for justice increases within the play.

Twelve Angry Men, a play written for a televised audience focusing on the jury deliberation on a trail of a nineteen-year-old boy who is accused of murdering his father. As the jury deliberation occurs they find that the evidence presented is incomplete and faulty in reasoning

8 pulls out an identical knife, “No.8 swiftly flicks open the blade of a switch knife and jams it into the table next to the first one. They are exactly the same.” Another piece of faulty evidence was the eyewitness account of a woman from across the street that saw the murder occur, as a matter of fact, it is stated it is the most important piece of evidence. No. 8 proved that although she might have seen the murder she could not have seen who the murder was because she testified “ she went to bed...tossed and turned for… an hour unable to sleep...turned towards the window… saw the boy stab his father.” No.8 precedes to say “...the woman who testified… wears glasses” and “... she wasn’t wearing them in bed... She testified… she rolled and looked casually out the window… I say she saw only a blur.” These scenes added to the drama as more of jurors reevaluate their vote to not guilty, notably leaving juror number 3 stubbornly in the verdict of guilty. When one remembers all but No.8 were in the verdict of guilty because a majority saw only a kid from the slums. In fact, juror no.4 stated “ … he’s a product of a filthy neighborhood… slums are breeding grounds for criminals... slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society.” Consequently causing tension to raise from juror no.5 who admits having lived in the slums all his life, adding drama early on, while also