In society, we have an obligation to our community to defend it by using judgment to determine a person’s innocence or guilt. It is a civic responsibility to make an informed decision that is determined based on evidence to help come to a logical conclusion. This essay argues that judgment in Twelve Angry Men is addressed by the jury who think rationally against a 16 year old kid facing the death sentence.
It looks at the gender and ethnicity of the jury and suggests that the environment the jurors are placed in forwards their own judgment on themselves, making judgment become an empathetic experience.
The placement of 12 men in a jury shows inconsistency towards female’s input upon what judgment should be made for the accused. Inserting 12 men together only evokes testosterone against one another affecting their critical thinking and causing drama. For Juror, 7 judgment is a fast process and is addressed in the drama as Rose (121) states that, “7th Juror, Listen, I’ll tell you something. I’m a little sick of this whole thing already. All this yakkin’s gettin’ us nowhere so I’m going to break it up here. I’m changing my vote to not guilty. 11th Juror, What kind of man are you? You have sat here and voted guilty with everyone else because there are some baseball tickets burning a hole in your pocket”.
The drama is now directed away from the accused of murder and now towards Juror 7 that shows irony towards the relevance of importance. It is from the example above we see