12 Angry Men: Contrasting Views Of Today's Jury System

656 Words2 Pages

In the United States court of law, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The people tasked with determining which of the two categories a defendant falls under is a jury of his or her peers. In Reginald Rose’s thrilling play, 12 Angry Men, the many aspects of America's jury system are closely examined revealing not only flaws but merits as well. The diverse personalities and backgrounds of the different jurors illustrate a picture of the jury room in vivid detail and reveal to the reader that past the apparent conflict is a system that works and has proven efficient for many decades. The contrasting viewpoints, dissimilar backgrounds, and random selection of the jury system together compliments and further proves its effectiveness. As a result, today's jury system may be flawed but the ways it benefits people on trial outweighs the negative as proven in 12 Angry Men. …show more content…

Similar to and often tying into a diverse background, conflicting views on the situation can greatly benefit the defendant and lead to a fairer trial overall. This is shown when the multiple jurors begin to argue for example, “INSERT ANOTHER QUOTE” this being a result of their different views on the situation that ultimately leads to a fair decision. Some individuals might attempt to point out that contrasting views on a situation can only lead to squabble and hatred and would stall the decision-making process. This is an excellent point but is easily disproven by the fact that examination of a trial from multiple views is a key factor in ensuring a fair and just

Open Document