Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men

Nicolas Cortez Zalatimo English 8 period 7 20 March 2024 Danger to Justice Although many would agree that 10 is a dangerous juror in Reginald Rose's play Twelve Angry Men, juror 3 is the most dangerous because he has prejudice towards the defendant and does not listen to other points and evidence. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, justice means conformity to moral right, or to reason, truth, or fact. Firstly in the book, Juror 3 is on a rant about how kids are always hostile nowadays. Juror 8 says Juror 3 is wrong, this prompts Juror 3 to ask Juror 8 if he has kids and Juror 8 says yes.

In ‘Twelve Angry Men’, written by Reginald Rose, juror three sees his son as the alleged and cannot wait to punish him, however, the prejudice he has against the alleged criminal urges juror three to take action as quickly as possible and votes a persistent ‘guilty’ verdict. Throughout the play, juror three is seen as an old, bitter man who makes his decisions based on his son and not his own conscience. When he is a part of the jury, he has the chance to be fair and reasonable, which he passes up the opportunity. He “[feels] that knife going in” when he talks about his son and how he finds a similarity in both the

At one point in his or her life, everyone is faced with some type of difficulty or problem that seems impossible to solve. Whether it be trying to convince people with an opposing view that your view is correct, or the difficulty of choosing between two opportunities, that could change your life, everyone shares the experience of being faced with adversity. In these strenuous moments everyone reacts in their own unique way, allowing some people to overcome the difficult moment, while others are left unsuccessful. This begs the question, in the face of adversity, what causes some people to prevail while others fail? While there could be countless answers to this question for any given scenario, it ultimately comes down to one's attitude and fortitude.

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

In “Twelve Angry Men” Reginald Rose shows how flawed the justice system could really be. He portrays this concept in this story by having 12 jurors try to figure out if a nineteen year old boy that grew up in the slums is guilty or not. The jurors automatically assumed that he is guilty only because of the fact that he was always getting into trouble when he was younger. Even after they heard all the unclear evidence that was given, 11 out of the 12 said that he was still guilty. If it wasn’t for the 1 juror that spoke up about how the evidence wasn’t clear, the boy would’ve been declared guilty. There has been many cases up to this date that show this type of prejudice.

The literary piece 12 Angry Men is a written play by Reginald Rose. It is a piece that describes the concerns of a jury on a homicide case. The case involves a teenage boy that allegedly killed his father. The adaptation is an excellent work of art that uses the best of the play and Hollywood movies to make an alluring and captivating movie. The literary text is formal in the manner that it is written with a good plot and is intriguing because of the conversations taking place by the jurors. The interesting conversations intertwined with logical statements trying to prove or disprove the doubt of murder makes it much more impressive. The murder and tension of a young boy’s life, helps to pull a reader closer and leads them to be more involved. Causal language is used in the book and lacks the tho’s and shalt’s of Shakespearean work. The stage directions are typically one to two sentences describing many of the motions the characters perform on stage which is longer than some other plays. The play utilizes both first and third person throughout, first person helps the audience to experience from a character's perspective and third person helps as an observer looking in.

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.

In Reginald Rose’s dramatic play “12 Angry Men,” the theme of prejudice permeates the reflection of a jury tasked with determining the verdict of a young man accused of stabbing his father. With clear characterization and intense dialogue, Rose describes various forms of prejudice that influence the jurors’ reasoning, as well as their decisions. A form of prejudice in “12 Angry Men” is the bias that originates from differences in socioeconomic status. Juror #4 embodies prejudice when he dismisses the defendant’s credibility because of his background. As he claims, “Slums are breeding grounds for criminals”.

Teens in this generation tend to only view one side of any type of argument. Rumors are a huge impact during this generation, us, teenagers hear so many rumors that are spread within the school that we spread them ourselves without listening to discover if it's true or not. For example, some High Schoolers may hear that a girl in their grade is pregnant, they believe it, eventually telling everyone else instead of asking her for the truth. Although, this example and the act read in class, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, are different but they are also alike. The author tells us that just because you have one side of an argument doesn't mean you can't gather more information to see whether or not something can be right or wrong. In which some cases, people are too lazy to identify details in any situation.

The 6th Amendment to the Constitution of America provides that every citizen is given the opportunity and the right to a fair trial that

In the 1957 MGM film, Twelve Angry Men, a young boy from the slum is on trial for allegedly stabbing his father to death. The jury from New York City is forced to have 12 men agree as to whether the boy is guilty or not guilty. If they decide not guilty, the boy is set free; if he is found guilty, the boy will receive the death sentence. In the beginning all but one agreed the boy was guilty; Juror 8, Mr. Davis, argues that the boy deserves some deliberation. Mr. Davis changed the other eleven jurors’ minds by using his core values such as keeping an open-mind, staying humble, and believing every life is valuable.

“Attribution theory deals with how the social perceiver uses information to arrive at causal explanations for events. It examines what information is gathered and how it is combined to form a causal judgment” (Fiske, & Taylor, 1991). The movie, 12 Angry Men, demonstrates both the external as well as the internal attributions of some jurors. Where Juror no. 8 emphasizes on how the boy was treated by giving the background of his life and not something inherent about the boy and his character shows the external attributes. Juror no. 3 who has the most complex personality has the notion that kids today do not have any respect or sense of morality. Also, Juror no. 10 has the belief that the slum children belong to a particular minority group which

“Don’t judge so you shall not be judged” (Luke 6:37), is a famous proverb quote that many people go by. But why is it that people judge? Or assume that someone is already guilty of a crime based on their race, skin color, economic status or family background? If someone has to make a judgment, he has to be certain of the facts surrounding the situation. Sentencing a person to die is a very crucial decision and the same reason goes into setting a guilty person free. Everybody deserves a fair and thorough trial. Judging a person according to someone else’s standards is not fair. In the 1957 Sydney Lumet film, The Twelve Angry Men, 12 jurors decided the fate of an 18-year boy, who was accused of killing his own father. The situation gradually transitioned from conflicting to agreeable and jurors’ characters changed from vindictive to considerate. The movie circled around the arguments on how people take a decision on innocence versus guilt in our democratic society. The increasing angst among the men was due to their different family backgrounds, personal differences, and the extremely inconvenient environment they are in.

Under the U.S. Constitution, every citizen has the right to a fair trial if accused or involved in a criminal prosecution. In Reginald Rose’s drama, “Twelve Angry Men,” the life of an 19-year-old, on trial for first degree murder, is in the hands of twelve men who are deciding if whether or not he is guilty of killing his own father. When first asked by the foreman, the majority voted ‘guilty.’ However, one man decided to vote for ‘not guilty.’ In this trial, because of certain pieces of evidence, the accused boy can be defended as not being responsible of committing the tragic murder of his father.

Today in the United States, being impoverished is almost treated like a crime. America’s legal system is punishing citizens for being impoverished. Court fees, bail bonds, and the consequences of petty crimes penalize people every day. Victims tend to be African-Americans, Latinos, mentally challenged people, and veterans; overall, people who are already in an impoverished state that they can’t get out of. These punishments make poor people even poorer than they already were. Impoverished people who go through this are often innocent and if not innocent, they have only committed victimless non-violent crimes. In addition, no citizen should be denied justice system based on their race, culture, or lack of economic resources.