An Analysis of Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose

Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’ is a play which displays the twelve individual jurors’ characteristics through the deliberation of a first degree murder case. Out of the twelve jurors, the 8th Juror shows an outstanding heroism exists in his individual bravery and truthfulness. At the start, the 8th Juror stands alone with his opposing view of the case to the other eleven jurors. Furthermore, he is depicted as a juror who definitely understands the jury system and defends it from the jurors who do not know it fully. At the end, he eventually successes to persuade the eleven other jurors and achieves a unanimous verdict, showing his

my opinion there were 3 main jurors in the jury room: Juror 8, Juror 3 and Juror 9. Juror 8 is

Inside a room where life or death decisions are made, twelve men sit with wandering thoughts. The made up minds of some jurors are to send a boy to his death without a second thought, but one other juror may change that. Inside of the play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose, Juror 8 has the persuasive evidence to change the minds of his fellow Jurors and save a boy from his execution. The other Juror’s seem like they won’t budge with their mind set on the decision of guilty, but after Juror 8 proves his thoughts on the decision of innocent, he may just be able to save a young life.

The jurors are transformed by the process of deliberating. Eleven men voted guilty because of their prejudices, fears, laziness and insecurities, but they are eventually persuaded by reason to give up these limiting beliefs, to see the potential in the facts, and to find justice. The critical turning points in the jury votes occur, not when there is passion and anger, but when there is reasoned discussion, as the rational Juror 8 triumphs over the prejudices of his fellow jurors. The facts of the case do not change, but the jurors come to see the facts differently, and change by the process they go through. Despite the hostility and tension created in this process, the twelve men end up reconciled, and justice is done.

In the drama “Twelve Angry Men’’ by Reginald Rose, there are twelve juror’s debating their opinions on a murder case. Even though all jurors were present during court and heard the same thing each of them has their own presupposition on democracy by which they portray using various phrases and actions. Throughout the drama the jurors debate and rebuttal opinions on the case.

Twelve Angry Men is a play that shows the workings of the American Justice System. The play is a celebration of the judicial system, and the main theme of the play is the triumph and the fragility of justice. The defendant’s fate is on the hand of the jurors as the man is accused of a serious offense which is murder. The purpose of the essay is to show the role that the plot, characters and the conflicts among the jurors support the theme of justice. Each juror had an initial verdict when the play begins but as events unfold and conflicts and agreements are reached the final and fair verdict is presented.

Before getting together to conclude, they hear the lawyers’ summations to help them better conclude. The jurors are told that since this case is a criminal case, that the verdict of guilty or not guilty must be unanimous. In this part, the jurors give their own personal opinions to each other from the evidence given to them as they sit in the jury room. It took several days for all of the jurors to come to a unanimous decision. However, one juror brought up a crucial piece of evidence that eventually swayed the rest of the jurors the same way as him.

Life and death in their hands but they don’t care, do you think justice is a joke? In the play of 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, there are 12 jurors who have to make a life or death decision of a 19 year old boy because he supposedly stabbed his father all the jurors believe he was guilty. Until one motivated juror actually looked closely into the facts. It's the jury's responsibility to analyze and dig much deeper into the defendant's case, its unfair to put an end to a man's life just because the jury did not care to take a closer look for a reasonable doubt. But they are too lazy and just want’s to get threw it very quick because they got something better to do.

Reginald Rose’s ’12 Angry Men’ brings 12 jurors together in a room to decide whether a young foreign boy is guilty of killing his father. The play is interwoven with dynamic characterisation, striking symbolism and intense moments of drama. Although Rose positions Juror 8 as the hero, the strongest character is in fact Juror 4, who is an independent thinker, rational and calm even as tension begins to build. Although Juror 4 initially votes guilty, he is able to admit his fault and change his vote.

Twelve Angry Men is a dramatic courtroom play by Reginald Rose published in 1954, which focuses on a jury of twelve men arguing the fate of a young boy, who has been accused of being a murderer. This play cleverly portrays the fact that prejudice exists in society and within every conflict. There are many sources of bigotry in this play, those being mostly character and legal conflict. Many jurors within this play fail to consider all the evidence and take it at face value, this leads to reasonable doubt, which in turn introduces controversy between characters.

Juror 8 see the situation with reasonable doubt feeling and it is influence him to vote not guilty throughout the discussion. He came out with valid reason why he votes for not guilty. He does not want send someone to death penalty easily without concrete evidence. His belief makes him to fight for it in sake of justice and influence him towards his decision making. He shows the emotional intelligence whereby he manages to control the emotion and moods in himself and others.

By refusing to acknowledge the counterarguments, juror 7, inadvertently prohibited himself from listening to the other jurors, which would effectively crush the crucial link between the speaker and the receiver. In that way, one’s own prejudices blocked the way to a successful and meaningful conversation.

The play  12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a play Novel where the theme is taken place in New York inside a empty  jury room in 1957. In the play a Judge’s is giving  instructions to the jurors. The jurors enter the empty room  as they chose to take a short break before starting the case They realize how the  room air conditioning isn’t working for the jurors to stay fresh, so you can have a guess that is around  summer season . The men complain that the room is hot and no cool air is hitting in the room ;even the fan stop work. After all,  the jurors start discussing and point out the obvious guilt of the defendant, who we learn that there is a teen accused of killing his father. Later on, the twelve Jurors take a vote. All jurors vote

According the five Methods for Influencing Other Group Members - use of reason, assertiveness, coalition building, higher values, and bargaining - when Juror Eight said: “we are talking about somebody life here, we can’t just decide within five minutes, suppose we are wrong”, he used the youth human-being life’s important and the danger of a false decision as good reasons to force other jurors in analyzing the facts carefully. He then talks about the boy’s backgrounds for appealing to logic and rational thinking of other jurors. Juror Three was overt prejudice, hostility, and used “assertiveness” to influence the other ten jurors of jury provided an antagonist for juror Eight. Juror eight used “coalition building” method to seek alignment with other group members. He never says that he believes the defendant is innocent but his mantra throughout the movie was “it’s possible!” referring to the reasonable doubt, which he convinced others’ thought. Juror Eight continued to appeal other eleven juror’s higher values by repeatedly reinforcing their moral and judicial obligation to convict only if there was no reasonable doubt. He challenged each juror to look at the facts more thoughtfully. “Bargaining” is offering an instrument exchange. Juror 8 used this method when he said: “I want to call for another vote… If there are 11 votes for guilty, I won’t stand alone… But if anyone votes not guilty, we stay here and talk it out.”

The right to a trial by jury is a core element of the United States Criminal Justice System. This right is guaranteed to all citizens by the highest law of the land: The United States Constitution. But are juries truly an effective means of securing justice? The movie 12 Angry Men provides commentary on this question with its portrayal of twelve jurors deliberating over a murder case. The jury initially seems bound to condemn the defendant, a young man of nineteen years, to the electric chair, but a single man, Juror no. 8 descents against the majority. Over the course of the film, tensions rise, and after much debate Juror no. 8 manages to convince the other eleven jurors to eventually vote not guilty. Through their debates and casual side conversations, we are shown the role of personal biases and group manipulation tactics that can impede with objective analysis and ultimately the attainment of justice. Thus, the Movie 12 Angry Men mostly serves to challenge the jury system as a means of securing justice by demonstrating the harmful effects of personal biases, the lack of dedication to the system, and the potential for manipulative tactics.