Predetermined Verdicts

Glaspell’s attempt to rationalize the murder is evident in the title, “A Jury of Her Peers.” The point she is trying to make is that under the early twentith century judiciary system, it is her opinion that a woman could not get a fair trial. She is of course referring to the standard of the day that a jury be composed of only males. In fact, a jury composed of women, she conjects, would quite possibly acquit a murderess wife of all charges, given favorable circumstances, as the two women unofficially did in the story. After all, according to Glaspell, they are like her, of her, and can understand her plight.

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

People's bias and predispositions can affect their opinion of different circumstances and different people. This is very evident throughout the play. After the first group vote and juror 8 votes not guilty, a discussion ensues. It is there that

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.

“A jury of her Peers” and Trifles are works of literature. In these works, they depict the murder of Mr. Wright. The men accuse Mrs. Wright to the murder of her husband, however are they are trying to find evidence to prove this. Both works are loosely based on the murder of John Hossack, which Glaspell reported on while working as a news journalist for the Des Moines Daily News. Hossack's wife, Margaret, was accused of killing her husband. However, Margaret argued that an intruder had killed John with an axe. She was convicted but it was overturned on appeal. In the play Trifles and the short story “A Jury of her Peers”, Susan Glaspell conveys how she transforms the play to the short story by change in the plot, the characters, and the themes of Female vs men and freedom

It was interesting to see the large differences in each juror’s lives. Every jury is eclectic because it is made up of very different people with very different family lives. For example, Juror #3 seems to be a well educated and well off man as he was wearing suspenders and a dress shirt. However, Juror #7 was a young man who seemed fairly uneducated and fairly poor because he dressed in a sweatsuit and used improper language. It was very interesting to see these different personalities clash. In the beginning when the men are all on the same page that the defendant is guilty except one, the men generally more relaxed (except for Juror #3).However, as more of the men start to explain their reasonings for seeing reasonable doubt, tension is prevalent in the room. The men who vote guilty are rallying up against the people who voted not guilty. The feeling of the room switches again as most jurors decide the defendant is guilty. That being said, Juror #3 creates a lot of tension in the room throughout the film due to the the fact that he yells at anyone who disagrees with him because he is unwilling to hear their opinions. For example, while one man is explaining why he thinks there is reasonable doubt, juror #3 decides to start a game of tic tac toe. This is very interesting because he is ready to send the defendant to his deathbed

An initial reading of A Jury of Her Peers suggests that the author focuses on the common stereotypes of women in the 1800s; however, a close reading reveals that the text also examines the idea that they are more capable than men may think. The fact that Mrs. Wright was able to pull off killing her husband by herself and without the men finding out proves that she is very capable and did not need the help of men to pull it off. The men at the time believed that women were incapable of doing things by themselves and thought that they should just stay in the kitchen, cook, and clean. They thought that they could not manage to do things that men could and did not trust them with a man's job.

Reginald Rose’s text, Twelve Angry Men, follows the jury deliberation of a small murder case, with a cast of twelve jury men discussing the evidence presented in court to decide whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. Over the course of the play, led primarily by moral compass jury number 8, the verdict is changed from eleven to one to acquittal, as the men are persuaded and subject to constant distractions, prejudice, bullying, and discussions of unreliable witness testimonies and lawyers, thus exploring issues about the validity of the justice system in magnitude.

“A Jury of Her Peers” is a short story written by Susan Glaspell in 1917 illustrates early feminist literature. The two female characters, Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale, is able to solve the mystery of who the murderer of John Wright while their male counterparts could not. This short story had been adapted from Glaspell’s one-act play Trifles written the previous year. The play consists of the same characters and plotline as the story. In both works, Glaspell depicts how the men, Sheriff Peters and Mr. Hale, disregard the most important area in the house, the kitchen, when it comes to their investigation. In the end, the women are the ones who find clues that lead to the conclusion of Minnie Wright, John Wright’s wife, is the one who murdered him. Both of Glaspell’s female characters illustrate the ability to step into a male dominated profession by taking on the role of detective. According to Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide, written by Lois Tyson, a reader-response critique “focuses on readers’ response to literary texts” and it’s a diverse area (169). Through a reader-response criticism from a feminist lens, we are able to analyze how “A Jury of Her Peers” and Trifles depict how a patriarchal society oppresses women in the early twentieth century, gender stereotypes confined both men and women and the emergence of the New Woman is illustrated.

Several pairs of eyes trail the prosecutor as he puts forth his reasons as to why the defendant should be guilty. Several pairs of ears listen intently in a trance like mode, also cautious of every detail. The prosecutor presents the facts with great gusto, painting a picture of the defendant in a bad light. Once he is done, the defendant’s lawyer takes the stage and he too, with great effort, puts forth reasons as to why his client is innocent. In the end, when everything is said and done and it time for the verdict, only one voice answers to the court clerk out of the 12 men and women. These 12 people are the jurymen and they play an equally important role as the lawyers and judges of a court trial. In fact, a jury is the sole decider, based

In the world renowned play Twelve Angry Men, the accused’s innocence or guilt is never resolved. Set in the New York summer of 1957, the playwright Reginald Rose explores themes of prejudice and the right to justice in his play and surprisingly finishes his play without a verdict. However there are many signs which directly encourage the reader to believe that the defendant is not guilty. The quintessential nature of this epiphany is displayed when Juror 3 finally concedes that the defendant is not guilty and all 12 jurors walk out of the jury room. This is a solid example of the accused’s guilt being resolved.

From beginning to end, Susan Glaspell’s 1917 short story “A Jury of Her Peers,” has several repetitive patterns and symbols that help the reader gain a profound understanding of how hard life is for women at the turn-of-the-century, as well as the bonds women share. In the story two women go with their husbands and county attorney to a remote house where Mr. Wright has been killed in his bed with a rope and he suspect is Minnie, his wife. Early in the story, Mrs. Hale sympathizes with Minnie and objects to the way the male investigators are “snoopin’ round and criticizin’ ” her kitchen. In contrast, Mrs. Peters, the Sheriffs wife, shows respect for the law, saying that the men are doing “no more than their duty”. However, by the end of the story Mrs. Peters unites with Mrs. Hale in a conspiracy of silence and concealing evidence. What causes this dramatic transformation?

The two women are collecting items to bring to Mrs. Wright. It is Mrs. Wright’s house that is being probed through. She is the suspected murderer. There are also three men investigating in the house at the same time. To give credit to the men, one did say, “What would we do without the ladies?” However, he did it in the same breath as accusing Mrs. Wright of being a bad housekeeper. The men leave the women in the kitchen and stop though a couple of times. During one of the passing’s the men laugh at the women. The women were wondering if Mrs. Wright was going to knot or quilt a quilt she was piecing. The men mock this query. Shortly after that, the women piece together the events that likely caused the murder. Incidentally, the women do not reveal the probable narrative to the men. Did they keep it a secret to protect Mrs. Wright? Did they keep quiet because they didn’t think that the men would believe them? Or did the women keep it to themselves for fear of being

The “Ethics of Justice” deal with large, sweeping, abstract concepts about the ideals of Justice without regard to relationships. A view that wrong is wrong no matter what the circumstances really. The “Ethics of Justice” encourage “impartial duty” and “portray the moral agent as someone who listens to reason, figures out the right thing to do, and does it” (96). They admit that they are holding Mrs. Wright for murder and they are looking for “a motive; something to show anger, or--sudden feeling” (101). However, they fail to actually search the place where the woman would have spent most of her time. The Ethics of Justice, just as the men in the play, are largely unconcerned with personal details. The men are likely looking for something very large in their search, rather than the slow-building motive that the women piece together. They fail entirely to notice anything out of place about the kitchen and chalk anything that they do notice up to Mrs. Wright being “not much of a housekeeper” (99). In short, the men are concerned with the “Why” of the case but only in the large terms of what they would consider, impetus for murder. They are concerned with finding a reason that makes sense to them but not necessarily to the, in all likelihood, female murderer. It seems that they are attempting to determine “What would cause another person to murder an innocent man?” rather than

In “A Jury of Her Peers,” Susan Glaspell uses the men’s belittlement and the women’s responses to show their differences. For example, when the men laugh about the women’s question of the quilt, Mrs. Hale responds with “our taking up our time with little things while we’re waiting for them to get the evidence. I don’t see as it’s anything to laugh about” (Glaspell 8). Seeing these differences bring the two women, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters, closer together. At one point in the story, “the two women moved a little closer together” in response when the men trivialize what trifles women go through (Glaspell 5). The women see things in the house that the men cannot due to the men never having to experience being in the place of a housewife. The men failed to see the little details that women could see. “Belittling the women, the condescending men exclude them from the legal investigation, doubting the women could recognize a forensic clue”, the men doing this causes their view of the crime to be incomplete, and they fail to recognize that the women were the men’s greatest investigators of this case (Kamir). Mr. Hale even completely ridicules the intelligence of the women altogether by saying “But would the women know a clue if they did come upon it?” (Glaspell 6).