The Justice System In Twelve Angry Men

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.

The capacity of human beings to possess different viewpoints, opinions beliefs and choices is what draws the line between man and animal. During the course of Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the viewer sees exactly what makes up the unique and complex nature of man and how these individualities can compare and contrast when combined. The message she conveyed by her depictions of the opinions of each of the jurors was that with twelve different people comes twelve different viewpoints that everyone included can learn from. By using the Marxist and Historical lens, it reveals that even though the jurors are seen as a collective, their individuality is what propels the story into a study of human nature and interpersonal communication.

At last, the 8th Juror triumphs to persuade all of the jurors and accomplishes a verdict of “not guilty”. Throughout the play, he tries hard to gain a reasonable doubt and successes in doing so, resulting in acquittal of the defendant. This undoubtedly reveals the 8th Juror’s fortitude in performing his duty as a jury member. Reginald Rose uses the stage directions to leave the 8th Juror until the very end and help out the 3rd Juror who has been exposed and broken by the 8th Juror’s power in jury deliberations: ‘The 8th Juror puts on his own jacket and brings the 3rd Juror’s jacket to him... The 8th Juror helps him on with his jacket’. Rose’s technique of using this stage direction works effectively to the audience members, giving a strong indication of the 8th Juror’s goodness, adding onto the success of persuading the 3rd Juror. Consequently, the 8th Juror is clarified as a ‘favourer’ to the 3rd Juror.

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.

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.

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

Including from their own lives each juror has gone through a point in time were even they were stereotyped by the world. The jury has been convinced that the boy has been severely stereotyped through the whole case and court. The 3rd juror let the case come into his own life and he made his own opinion on the boy without even paying attention to detail, he reflected his own life in his argument with stereotypes (72). The lives of the jurors have all been affected by the acts of stereotyping and see the effects of it that can have on someone. A boy that at the beginning almost lost his life due to the people just looking at him was saved by the fact that the jury looked past all that.

The 1957 film 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, tells the story of a jury made up of twelve men, as they contemplate the sentencing of a young man accused of murder. As the name implies, many of the jurors become extremely emotional as the deliberation process moves on. The jurors’ emotions and unique personalities create various conflicts and show how they each have differing perspectives on the trial. Throughout the deliberation process it becomes clear that several of the jurors harbor personal prejudices which end up affecting their decisions in reaching a verdict. It is clear from the beginning that if not for one juror, known as Juror 8, the jury would have returned a unanimous guilty verdict with no deliberation.

First, and arguably most important, Juror 8 is extremely bright. In Act III, the witness account of a woman who claims she witnessed the entire murder, and swears she saw the son kill the father. Juror 8 is quick to poke hole in her story. First, he points out that the woman wore glasses, and sense

The play ‘Twelve Angry Men’ written by playwright Reginald Rose. The play conveys an optimistic view of society and the justice system. Set in New York 1957, the play delves into the journey of twelve ordinary men as they struggle to come to a unanimous decision, which in effect will determine the fate of a young boy. The play empowers diversity rather than continuity by composing a cross-section of characters that embrace their differences. The playwright exhibits the notion that prejudices and biases are factors in every dispute and can mask the truth. Additionally, Rose depicts the dangers of a jury system that relies on 12 individual men that unanimously try to reach a life or death decision.

A normal jury room consists of twelve jurors discussing, and colliding opinions about a particular case. In the play; Twelve Angry Men twelve jurors were placed in a room doing just that to determine exactly how innocent a 16 year old boy is after being the blame for his father’s death. However, to begin with eleven of the twelve jurors felt as if the young man was guilty supporting the disciplinary sentence of a 1st degree murder charge that results in an automatic death penalty. Surprisingly, the 8th juror did whatever it took to discuss the evidence and determine if reasonable doubt was a possibility, while the others locked in their vote without analyzing and

Sidney Lumet's 12 Angry Men, depicted a both inspiring yet damaged representation of America’s legal system. While justice and truth led the jury a morally sound decision, it was not without disobedience and multiple instances of legal infraction. Time after time, prominent figures in the jury room presented personal opinions and even gave examples of unrelated life experiences. In the United States, where all decisions of juries must be made on evidence provided in the courtroom, these individuals violated the law. This 1950’s drama ultimately raises concern over the state of our legal system; which is one where right and wrong are smothered by overwhelming legal guidelines.

Synonymous with the characters of the film Twelve Angry Men, the viewer can see the diverse personalities of the twelve man jury as they worked towards the common goal of making a decision about a boy’s life; whether or not he was guilty. The men had what

Twelve Angry Men is an anecdote, originally written to be a play, that takes place in a jury room. In this room, twelve men discuss the fate of a young man on trial for the murder of his own father. The men initially disagree with whether or not the accused is guilty or innocent. Originally, the vote is 11 for guilty, and 1 for not guilty. By the end of the story, using persuasive techniques, and some heated argument, the verdict takes a 360 degree turn around and ends up being not guilty. From the intense debate between the men, the play Twelve Angry Men can show it’s reader many valuable life lessons about taking risks, facing prejudice, and standing up for what one believes in.

In the American criminal system, those charged with crimes needed to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, the main character, Juror Eight, was able to put hesitation into the rest of the jury’s minds. He challenged the evidence and proved to them that they could not be sure enough to convict the defendant. Society had certain expectations when it came to the jury; they were expected to make impartial decisions, based on facts alone, without any prejudices, outside influences or personal issues influencing their decisions. As the play unfolded, there was a struggle between right and wrong; a struggle against prejudices, racism, and a struggle for compassion. Juror Eight’s honorable efforts were highly commendable, as not only was able to save the boy’s life, but he