What Is 12 Angry Men Jury Duty

Jury duty is often regarded by most of society as a dull and tiresome obligation. Perhaps one would be inclined to change their assessment if jury duty meant you and eleven other men were the only thing standing between a boy and the electric chair. The teleplay Twelve Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, tells the story of a 1950’s court case wherein a young man, under suspicion of murdering his father, faces the death penalty. The script centers around the twelve men of the jury as they decide whether or not the boy will live or die. As tensions start to run higher, the jurors get into intense arguments, sometimes letting outside biases overtake them. It begins to become apparent that Rose uses the script of Twelve Angry Men to comment on

Juror #3 and Juror #10 are prime examples of this. During the story’s second act, the jury votes once again, resulting in a six to six split. Juror #10 is irate over that, exclaiming that, “I’m sick and tired of facts” (Rose 76). Juror #10 was so blinded by his prejudice and self-imposed obligation to vote guilty that he is, to his own admission, actively ignoring the facts of the case. By this point in the story, there has been more than enough reasonable doubt fostered that at least five jurors have changed their minds. In a testament to both his own stubbornness and loyalty to the guilty cause, Juror #10 rebuffs every argument made by the not guilty party. Equally important, Juror #3 is willfully obtuse to the revelations made by the other jurors, marking him as the twelfth and final juror to vote not guilty. In the end, it takes the other men demanding his line of thinking for him to finally declare “not guilty” (Rose 115). Juror #3, being the main antagonist, is stuck in his pessimistic mindset and refuses to change his decision regarding the defendant’s fate. At times, it’s clear he is blowing off rationale for the sake of maintaining his guilty verdict. Overall, loyalty to a specific group or idea, to the point of absurdity, is yet another side effect of group behavior that Reginald Rose was trying to

As a result of their different racial groups, the script makes it clear that the men, at times, struggle to relate to the defendant. At several points in the script, jurors hold the defendant to standards both higher and lower than they do for themselves. Juror #10 takes this to the most extreme degree possible; towards the end of the story, he goes on a hatred-fueled rant, spewing hateful rhetoric towards Puerto Ricans (Rose 100). His life up to this point, being part of such a privileged group in society, has allowed him to form and keep his bigoted opinions. He can’t, and quite possibly never will, truly understand the plight people like the defendant experience. Additionally, Juror #4 claims that he could remember fine details under great emotional stress, something the defendant failed to do. Unfortunately for him, when questioned by Juror #8, Juror #4 struggles to remember the details of a movie he recently saw, proving his point moot (Rose 84). Through this, we see that Juror #4 was holding the defendant to unrealistic expectations; demanding he remember inconsequential details immediately after a traumatic experience, when Juror #4 fails to do the same while, notably, not under a great emotional turmoil. Seeing that the defendant is so different from himself, Juror #4 forgets that they are both human and,