Guilt In Twelve Angry Men, By Reginald Rose

The play “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a drama about twelve jurors deciding on whether a nineteen year old boy is guilty of murdering his father. The boy has a lengthy list of criminal changes, three witnesses testifying against him, and a weak alibi. This compels eleven of the twelve jurors to detect him as guilty. However, one juror believes that the others are not deciding fairly and are stereotyping. Juror eight, the one who names the boy not guilty, spends the entirety of the play persuading and arguing with the extremely irritable and opinionated juror three.

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.

Initially, Juror 8 stands alone during the first vote. For clarification, he doesn’t cower and change his initial vote when he notices that all the other people in the room are against him. Eight didn’t succumb to peer pressure and made it his duty to ensure everyone else sees what he does. Second, Juror 5 changed his vote from “guilty” to “not guilty” because he realised how much the accused has in common with his own upbringing. For instance, both of them grew up in the slums and were often negatively stereotyped. People tend to agree with others if they find something that they have in common. Lastly, Juror 11 called Juror 7 out for misusing his freedoms as an American citizen and his responsibilities as a Juror of the court. Being that Juror Seven only changed his vote because he had tickets to a play, Juror 11 was enraged, mainly because not everyone has the same opportunities as they do at the moment. When Juror 11 lived in Europe, he never had opportunities like this so he was taking it seriously, especially because the life of someone else was in jeopardy. Quite often literature mirrors real life, as is the case with the recent shooting in Las Vegas when complete strangers risked their own safety or put their own lives on hold to help when others were in

And this gives people some thought about if the old man heard anything at all, and a few minutes later Juror Nine changes his vote to not guilty, starting the whole transition that leads to the end of the play. Another piece of evidence that had pieces missing was the boy not remembering the movie. Now it was said that the boy should have remembered a movie three hours before the police were called for the murder, but the boy said he didn’t remember the name or the actors from the movie. Juror eight tries to prove that you can’t remember everything from long ago. Recalling every detail is not possible.

At the beginning of Reginald Rose’s play, Twelve Angry Men (1955), the judge states, “it now becomes your duty to try to separate the facts from the fancy”. At stake is the fate of a 16-year-old boy who is on trial for the murder of his father. As the discussion unfolds, many difficulties emerge among the 12 jurors whose various experiences and backgrounds as well as their varied life narratives fuel tension.

]In this trial, there are twelve angry men. These men are the jurors deciding a 19-year old's fate of life or death. So in the drama Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose's shows justice through motif, dialogue, and imagery. The first way Reginald Rose shows justice is with a couple motifs. Like when the jurors do the first vote “guilty, guilty, guilty, not guilty.”(26

Imagine this, you're being taken to jail for a crime you supposedly did, although you actually had nothing to do with it. The next day you have a trial, but The jurors that are there care less of who you are. The trial goes up to three days, finally the jurors discuss the case and come up to a decision, however it isn't what you had expected. You're accused guilty for a crime you didn't commit and now you have to deal with the consequences, what perhaps could have gone wrong in this case? Could it have been that someone set you up, then again could it have been that the jurors in the trial just rushed since they didn't actually care from the start?

Justice is the most important theme throughout this play. It proves that truth can’t be found without a struggle. In the play there was only one juror wanting to hear all the evidence in the court case. But when more facts were found out then some of the other jurors wanted to hear the rest of it, which would determine whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty. No one really knew if the boy was guilty but or not but they figured out that he was not given a fair trial. The defence barrister didn’t care because he wasn’t getting paid enough money to care. So that’s what the jurors thought it was up to them then, to repay the boy with justice.

You're not gonna tell me you believe that phony story about losing the knife, and that business about being at the movies. Look, you know how these people lie! It's born in them! I mean what the heck? I don't even have to tell you. They don't know what the truth is! And lemme tell you, they don't need any real big reason to kill someone, either! No sir! [Juror 10, page 51] This type of prejudice offended many of the other jurors, especially Juror 5 who is of similar race to the accused.

In the book 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, the jurors took a vote to see what everyone thought of the case and if they could come to a swift decision without having to debate. The vote turned out eleven to one in favor of guilty. In the United States criminal justice system one of the most coveted concepts “innocent until proven guilty” is to be used in such a case. The jurors all vote guilty immediately because Juror Three describes the defendant as such; “The man’s a dangerous killer. You could see it” (Rose 11).

Twelve Angry Men is a legal drama, written by Reginald Rose during the heightened period of 1950's McCarthyism. The didactic play presents a cross section, examining 1950's America during a period of immense suspicion and uncertainty. Roses' play reminds us of the importance of responsibility and integrity, emphasising qualities such as courage that aid in preserving justice. The play examines the power of the "lone voice" and places a special emphasis on the serving of justice over the quest for truth through a central plot and strategic framing. The idea of time versus

A boy may die,” and changes his vote to “not guilty” which is another instance where the boy gets a fair trial. The 12th and 7th juror find it difficult to decide on which way to vote and therefore vote “not guilty” so that the boy is not “sent off to die.” The 12th juror’s lack of a defined and consistent point of view reflects America’s post war materialism. The 4th juror believed that the defendant was guilty for most of the play but then was the 2nd last juror to change his vote and admitted that he had a “reasonable doubt.” Although the audience never finds out whether the defendant was “guilty” or “not guilty” the jurors give the “kid from the slums” an honest trial.

These two jurors are almost the plain opposite of each other. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant man accustomed of forcing his

The heart of the American Judicial System is the determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused. At the beginning of the play, the jurors all feel that the man is guilty for murdering his father and they all wanted to convict him without carrying out a detailed discussion. The persistence of juror eight, however, plays a significant role in ensuring that the correct and fair verdict is delivered. The judicial system maintains that the defendant does not have an obligation to prove his innocence. The fact is not clear to everyone as Juror 8 reminds Juror 2 about it. The fact is a key element of the judicial system and assists in the process of coming up with a verdict. The defendant is usually innocent until proven guilty. Another element of the judicial system that comes out in the play is for a verdict to stand it must be unanimous. Unanimity ensures that the

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