‘Twelve Angry Men Shows That One Man Can Make a Difference.’ Do You Agree?

Juror 3 an emotionally distraught man who has not been in touch with his estranged son votes guilty based on biases to young children who have lack respect to their elders this is shown when he points out to Juror 2 “I’d think we’d be better off if we took these tough kids and slapped ‘em down before they make trouble” this enrage provokes a sense of dislike in the audience to Juror 3 as he believes that violence is the key to problem-solving. In relation to both jurors there is always seems to be tension amongst them when Juror 8 constantly reveals Juror 3’s weaknesses that is delaying them from reaching a final verdict. Rose uses these two jurors to shows how there is always one juror who will always bring out people’s imperfections.

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

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

Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’ is a play which displays the twelve individual jurors’ characteristics through the deliberation of a first degree murder case. Out of the twelve jurors, the 8th Juror shows an outstanding heroism exists in his individual bravery and truthfulness. At the start, the 8th Juror stands alone with his opposing view of the case to the other eleven jurors. Furthermore, he is depicted as a juror who definitely understands the jury system and defends it from the jurors who do not know it fully. At the end, he eventually successes to persuade the eleven other jurors and achieves a unanimous verdict, showing his

The play "Twelve Angry Men", By Reginald Rose, is a play about 12 jurors that in an

In the play “Twelve Angry men”, the story line presents a variety of perspectives and opinions between twelve very different men. Some are more likely to be pointed out as prejudice, and others are more focused on reaching fair justice. Clearly, it is quite difficult for different people to vote ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ in unity when coming to a fair decision. In all of the twelve jurors, I have chosen Juror 3 and Juror 8 for contrast and comparison. I believe that Juror number 3 is a very opinionated man, with more differences than similarities comparing with Juror number 8.

At times the defendant is treated very unfairly and is often discriminated due to his personal background. It is certainly the 10th juror who most vehemently represents the potential frightening power of racism and xenophobia. He is convinced that the defendant is guilty and he views the defendant “not as an individual, but as a representative of a larger group.” The 10th Juror does not want any further discussions and wants the boy to be sent to the electric chair. The 10th is very unfair on the defendant and expresses his hate towards people from the slums “it’s

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.

Juror 10 is a closed minded older man that uses a lot of stereotypes to make his decisions on whether or not the accused is really guilty or innocent. For example, Juror 10 yells, “You said it there. I don't want any part of them, believe me” (12 Angry Men). At this point during play, he was using where the accused lived and grew up

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.

Larry Watson’s 1993 novella ‘Montana 1948’ tells a tale of loyalty and justice through a young boy living in a town where the justice system is corrupted by family ties and racism. Likewise, in Reginald Rose’s 1954 teleplay ‘Twelve Angry Men’, twelve jurors determine the fate of a boy accused of murdering his father. Although the stories are quite different, Montana 1948 having a strong family dynamic and Twelve Angry Men being a short courtroom drama, ultimately they both explore justice as a theme and how justice can be very subjective and moulded to

Throughout the text, negative racial prejudices hinder the success of justice, thus denying truth in the judicial system. Due to the defendant being hispanic, and from the slums, negative racial prejudices become prevalent in the juror’s opinions, which ultimately leads to injustice, as the truth is denied and ignored. The negative racial prejudices are depicted throughout the play multiple times, especially by Juror 10, who is revealed to be an open racist who believes that the 16 year old defendant should be sent to the electric chair due to his hispanic nationality. Within the play, Juror 10 states “They’re violent, they’re vicious, they’re ignorant, and they will cut us up. That’s their intent” when referring to the hispanic ‘race’. The direct dialogue conveyed within Juror 10’s statement allows the

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

Juror 4 is able to remain calm and composed throughout the most stressful of situations. While Juror 10 exhibits racial outbursts; “They get drunk”, “That's the way they are!”, “VIOLENT!”, “These people are dangerous. They're wild. Listen to me. Listen.” Juror 4 sat through this entire scene without saying a word. It is only until Juror 10’s monologue is finished that Juror 4 speaks, calmly asking Juror 10 to “Shut [his] filthy mouth.” Juror 4 never discredits or implies anything towards the defendant and is always careful of what he says. After Juror 10’s tirade, Juror 4 tries to soften the impact created by 10; “Slums are potential breeding grounds for criminals.” He never attacks or hypes the situation at hand. He draws around ‘potential’ possibilities. Juror 4 initially had his doubts at the start of the case but was the only character that overcame his predisposition based on the analysis of facts and evidence. Rose’s character and only this character had the intelligence, confidence and persistence to keep his head in the tense moment Juror 10 created.