Reginald Rose's Justice System

Similarly ,In Twelve Angry Men Juror 8 is a smart and moral juror who is willing to stand against all the other jurors for what he thinks is right. He is the main protagonist who believes a boy accused with murdering his father deserves a discussion prior to a guilty verdict. Although all the other jurors initially voted guilty, juror 8 believed that the jurors should not “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”(Juror 8, 12). Throughout the play Juror 8 combats the pressure from the other Jurors to just vote guilty and manages to convince his fellow Jurors one by one that there in fact is “reasonable doubt”(Judge, 6) and convinces them to arrive at a “not guilty”(Juror 3, 72) verdict. Reginald Rose extols Juror 8’s pursuit of justice through his success. Not only did Juror 8 stand by his principles and have the courage to stand against all the other Jurors, he also had the wits to convince his fellow jurors to change their verdict. Through these actions Juror 8 brings justice to the courts of New York city saving the life of a young boy.

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

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]

In the movie 12 Angry Men, the jurors are set in a hot jury room while they are trying to determine the verdict of a young man who is accused of committing a murder. The jurors all explain why they think the accused is guilty or not guilty. Throughout the movie they are debating back and forth and the reader begins to realize that even though the jurors should try to not let bias cloud their judgement, the majority of the jurors are blinded by bias. The viewer can also see that the jurors have their own distinguishable personalities. Their personalities intertwine with each other to demonstrate how the jury system is flawed, but that is what makes it work.

Prejudice can often be formed without one even realize they are prejudiced, many of the characters in 12 Angry Men, have done as such, allowing their prejudice to not allow them fully evaluate the case unbiasedly. Jurors three, ten and seven are swayed by their prejudiced beliefs against the accused, as the deliberate the accused fate, juror ten states “his type are no good”(12 Angry Men). This prejudice which all of them share, justifiers their neglecting to inspect the evidence and testimony given rather than simply accepting it at face value. The film 12 Angry Men conveys how difficult it can be to set aside prejudiced views through jurors three, seven, and ten. The film also enables the reader to see how prejudice such as past experiences, ingnorance or misinformation, and stereotyping can cloud ones judgement.

In Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men there is a clear juror whom swayed the others and directly expressed his ideas. He is a “gentle man...who wants justice to be done.” Juror no.8 is the hero as his initial choice to vote not guilty locks in the boy's fate of escaping a life of prison and punishment; not excluding his persuasiveness and ideology of the morality of the other jurors. Juror no.8 single handedly voted against the grain and convinced other jurors of his logical reasons ‘it’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy of to die before talking about it first’. It was heroic of him to stand out against the others and the dramatic conclusion greatly attributed to his significant factor as the vote sway from 11-1 guilty to 12-0 for not guilty. Juror no.8 helped conveyed to the other jurors the boy's innocence. Persuading jurors in a chill mannerism whist jurors 3 and 10 were angry and impatient. Over the case juror no.8 was calm and reviewed the evidence taken from the prosecution and it's flaws. Juror no.8 constantly reviewed the evidence with other jurors presenting logical

Can racial bias have an effect on the verdict of being guilty or innocent? The American judicial courtroom has been comprised of the nation’s many greatest racial discriminatory cases over the past century, but the most racially upstanding case, when referring to Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird includes The Scottsboro Trials. Both stories uprise in the 1930s, displaying a white supremacist mindset, which two cases fall into the conviction of rape. The Scottsboro case started on a train to northern Alabama to southern Tennessee, when nine African American boys, ranging in ages from 13-19, allegedly raped two “innocent” Caucasian women, Victoria Price and Ruby Bates. Racial discrimination uprises in American judicial system when shown in To Kill a Mockingbird and The Scottsboro Trials through the racial prejudice within the jury in the courtroom, easy accessibility to target African Americans, biased accusations, as well as the social pressure to serve in one’s defense.

The complexity of justice is evident in Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’, through the employment of Truth throughout the American 1950’s judicial system. Throughout the text, the concept of justice is forged by the racal prejudices, personal bias, emotion, logistics, and reasoning of the Jurors, thus allowing truth to hinder or prevail. Justice is shaped by truth in ‘Twelve Angry Men’, as the Jurors begin to understand the reasonable doubt in the evidence against the defendant, as the truth becomes prevalent through the Juror’s deductive capabilities, thus allowing for injustice to be hindered by the truth, which ultimately leads justice to prevail in the judicial system.

There are many significant views and values that Reginald Rose demonstrates in 12 Angry Men the most important one being that prejudice constantly affects the truth and peoples judgement. As the jurors argue between themselves as to whether a young boy is guilty of stabbing his father it is shown that “It’s very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this.” This is most evident in the way juror #3 and juror #10 come to their decision that the young man is guilty as they bring in there prejudice against young people and people from the slums to make their judgement without considering the facts of the case. Rose uses juror #8 who can see the whole trial because he is calm, reasonable and brings no prejudice as a prime example

In his infamous “Personal prejudice and financial greed are the two great evils that threaten courts of law, and once they get the upper hand they immediately hamstring society, by destroying all justice.” (Thomas More). As these words from St. Thomas More explain, personal prejudice has long played a part in threatening the judicial system if it overrules personal integrity. Personal prejudice clouds one’s judgment, and therefore makes it difficult to fairly judge the innocence of the defendant. In fact, in the play Twelve Angry Men, Juror Three exhibits the effect that personal prejudice can have on the judicial system, as well as the ineffective arguments produced from this prejudice. He reveals how unsuccessful bias-based arguments are, and the lack of evidence and persuasive reasoning resulting from them. In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, although Juror three attempts to prove the boy’s guilt with rhetorical appeals to ethos, ultimately his reliance on fallacious arguments and personal prejudice lead to his downfall and eventual breakdown.

In the play, 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, a nineteen-year old boy is accused of the murder of his father. Throughout the play, the jurors argue the boy’s innocence and guilt. Juror Four argues that, “[...] slums are breeding grounds for criminals [...]. The children that come out of slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society”(Rose I. 21). Juror Four, as well as ten other jurors, all agree that because the boy came from a bad background, he is destined to be a criminal and should be executed for the murder. This

Prejudice in the movie "Twelve Angry Men" is everywhere and it tailors how these jurors decide whether a boy is guilty and not guilty. An example of prejudice in this movie is juror 10. Juror 10 is a racist: he believes that people who grew up in the poor sections of the cities are trash and violent people. He also believes that people like the boy on trial need to die because "he has the genes of violence and he can not reproduce. "

The movie “12 Angry Men” begins by introducing the young man who is on trial for killing his father. In the movie, it is revealed that the 12 Jurors who heard the case deliberation over all the evidence must return back to court with a unanimous verdict. The jury consists of 12 Caucasian men, middle class to upper class of middle age. The group of men is not only deciding if the young man is guilty but the young man’s life as well.

Consider the scenario of the movie “12 Angry Men”, eleven jurors vote in favor of convicting the accused without even discussing a single shred of evidence that was presented at the trial. In the movie, if Henry Fonda wasn’t part of the jury, the boy would have been declared guilty and would have died (1957). However, Fonda decided to continue investigating and finally got to the bottom of the mystery. The boy was declared not guilty, but neither the play nor the movie tells us whether they saved an innocent man from death or whether they let a guilty man walk free. The movie emphasizes how important our judicial system is, and how much responsibility we have as citizens to become a jury of our peers and not rush into judgment, because as seen in the movie, jurors judged the accused based on their personal life

In “12 Angry Men” a young boy was being judged by jury for the death of his father. One out of the twelve jury’s accused him guilty, just for the color of his skin. The jury didn’t look further into the situation his statement was “ There’s not one of ‘em who’s any good”. He didn’t care in look for more information, neither did he care In hearings others out. All he wanted was to accuse the boy guilty and leave