12 Angry Men By Reginald Rose: Play Analysis

During the time Reginald Rose wrote the play Twelve Angry Men America was not an equal place for all people. A democracy is founded on the ideology that all Americans should be given a fair trial in court before being declared guilty. The twelve jurors in the play come from various backgrounds but initially, all but one vote in favor of the boy’s unforgivable sentence; while two other jurors lift two strong social stigmas and overcome their bias. One juror decided to stand up and take the time out for proper reasoning that resulted in teaching the others two jurors a lesson. Final verdicts should be made on justifiable grounds or the foundation of America’s society could be left at risk for collapse. Justifiable final verdicts are skewed

When the plot is looked at through the Marxist lens, it becomes evident that the final verdict was affected because of the inability of the jurors to interact with each other due to class differences. On top of that, the boy was judged because of his class difference as well. The fourth juror makes known that he is wealthy, the fifth juror had a rough upbringing, and so on.Each juror seemed to be in a slightly different class, which they used this to define themselves. But, by the climax of the play when the eleventh juror responds with “...If you want to vote not guilty, then do it because you're convinced the man is not guilty - not because you've had enough. And if you think he's guilty, then vote that way, or don't you have the guts to

However, it isn't just the jurors' own personal prejudice that affects the way they vote. The prosecution of the boy led the jurors to believe that he was a guilty beyond all doubt. Also, the boy's representation was uninterested and uncaring. ‘I kept putting myself in the boy's place. I would have asked for another lawyer, I think. I mean, if I was on trial for my life I'd want my lawyer to tear the prosecution witnesses to shreds, or at least to try.' [Juror 8, page 14]

The play "Twelve Angry Men", By Reginald Rose, is a play about 12 jurors that in an

The setting of 12 Angry Men is a jury deliberation room where the jurors are and required to decide the guilt or innocence of an 18 year old that is accused of committing first-degree murder by stabbing his father with a switchblade knife. Witnesses were presented to give evidence of hearing a quarrel; hearing a threat to kill, and have seeing the boy run away. Another witness swore to having seen the boy stabbing his father from a window across from where the murder occurred. Eleven jurors were convinced the boy was guilty and deserved the death penalty. One raised questions he felt had not been asked or had not been pursued by the defense.

Twelve Angry Men, a play by Reginald Rose, was written in 1955 at a time when America was involved in a cold war with communist countries. It shows the strength of a deliberative process that enables individuals, who have “nothing to gain or lose,” to reach a verdict. In the American jury system “everybody deserves a fair trial” and in Twelve Angry Men the defendant gets a very fair trial. All the jurors have their own opinions on the case but in the end a decision is made. The jury, and the audience, never discovers if in fact the defendant did murder his father. His guilt or innocence seems to be almost

5. “I survived, but it’s not a happy ending. I was a coward. I went to war.” (61)

Twelve Angry Men, is a play written by Reginald Rose. The play is about the process of individuals and a court case, which is determining the fate of a teenager. It presents the themes of justice, independence and ignorance. Rose emphasises these three themes through the characters and the dialogue. Justice is the principle of moral rightness or equity. This is shown through juror number eight who isn’t sure whether or not the boy is actually innocent or guilty, but he persists to ask questions and convinces the other jurors to think about the facts first. Independence is shown through both juror number three and ten. They both believe that the defendant is guilty until they both realise that they can not relate there past experiences with

Angry! Hostile!” This causes him to not listen to the other jurors opinions and block out any idea of the defendant being innocent. His prejudice is further understood when he says “this kid is guilty. He’s got to burn. We’re letting him slip through our fingers here.” Juror #3 is only able to see the young boy on trial as a symbol of his own son and is therefore unable to look past his own anger towards his son and see the case for what it really is. It is only through the help of juror #8 does juror #3 finally let go of his personal prejudice and sees the truth about the case and changes his vote to not guilty.

The play showed the theme of “Stereotyping in the World” through the characters’ proper reasoning, communicating, and believing in good faith. Twelve Angry Men allowed the views of many different men to see past the outside of a person and look at who they actually are. The play will put the test of each of the jurors’ character and show that the clear theme in the play is “Stereotyping in the World.” The boy has been out in a life where he has no other way out of the setting and must live in. Even though he lives in the area does not mean that he is that category and so does the

Juror 11 is a refugee from Europe. He is a watchmaker who speaks politely and deeply appreciates his democratic rights and freedoms and has no tolerance for those that don’t. He respects process, and wants others to do what is right. For the most part he is controlled in his emotions and we only really see him get fired up when juror 7 wants to change his vote simply to hurry the process so that he can make the baseball game for which he has tickets. He is disgusted that someone would not take their role seriously especially when a boy’s life is at stake. He pushes hard at the juror and demands that he explain why he changed his vote. He speaks with such conviction that seven

5. On the bus, he describes it to two or three friends saying Miss Narwin hates him; that is all, but it’s more than that.

The play and Speech both involve prejudice against two commonly accused minorities in America. All jurors were white and with the combination of racism it made it seem like injustice was certain. 12 Angry Men racial prejudice towards the Latino boy was also apparent. At one point of time it seemed like the Latino boy would be executed, because nearly everyone would have found him guilty. It was stated that “So far eleven jurors are predisposed to convict him of the murder charges, only one juror, Mr. Davis believed his innocence.” If the jury system was not based on unanimous consent, then the Latino boy would have died. This is simply due to racial prejudice and it is purely unjust. In a court of law, the jury is the fact finder and not a social commentator.

“So—nine. What’s the difference? She’ll just add to the noise and get tired besides” (511).

Juror #8: It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth. I don't really know what the truth is. I don't suppose anybody will ever really know. Nine of us now seem to feel that the defendant is innocent, but we're just gambling on probabilities - we may be wrong. We may be trying to let a guilty man go free, I don't know.