“Twelve Angry Men” is a dramatic play written by Reginald Rose. A young Puerto Rican man is put on trial for stabbing his father with a knife, and a stubborn jury is forced to decide his fate. Twelve jurors debate for hours until one by one, each juror is convinced of the defendant’s innocence. Juror eight, the protagonist, tries to prove the boy innocent, while the antagonist, juror three, and the rest of the jury try to change his mind. Juror eight is a smart and patient man who wants to seek justice despite the obstacles he has to face. For example, juror eight says “it’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” This shows that he is level headed and aware that whatever is decided in that room will have life or death consequences. Juror eight proves his credibility to his peers and is detested by juror three because of his determination to prove the boy innocent. His final vote, not guilty, remains unchanged throughout the play because he believes that no matter the race, age, or background of the defendant, everyone deserves a fair trial. As you can see, juror eight is a honest man whose integrity and confidence allows him them to open their minds and see the truth. …show more content…
For instance, he screams “let me go! I’ll kill him. I’ll kill him” at juror eight after he proved his sole piece of evidence faulty. This quote shows that juror three has a very short temper when things don’t go his way and he loses. Juror eight calls the juror a sadist after it is revealed that he doesn't care about the facts, only about the execution of the boy. Juror three reluctantly votes not guilty once he realizes that there is no hope for his argument. Therefore, juror three’s violent behavior and failure to accept the truth leaves him excluded and alone in the
Juror Three was the main antagonist of the story and was also the last one to change his vote to “not guilty.” Throughout “Twelve Angry Men”, he was very aggressive to anyone who did not share the same opinions as him. He stated this to Juror Eight after he was called a sadist, “Shut up! {Lunges at Eight, but is caught by two of the JURORS and is held. He struggles as EIGHT watches calmly. Then he screams.} Let me go! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” Also, it was very hard for Juror Three to change his mind. We can see this in the book and the movie. Although the facts he stated were all disproven, he would go back to them. Also, it was hard for him to change his mind because of what happened between him and his son. His son had punched him good
Reasonable doubt is defined “as uncertainty as to the guilt of a criminal defendant.” This ideology has been the basis for justice systems in many modern countries for centuries. A panel of twelve men and women who have the immense responsibility of choosing the fate for one person. This principle is the basis for Reginald Rose’s satire, Twelve Angry Men. A play that describes the scene of a New York jury room, where twelve men have to decide between life and death for a inner-city teen, charged with killing his father. These jurors have to sift through the facts and the fiction to uncover the truth about the case and some truths about themselves. Reginald Rose outlines through the actions of juror number three, that no matter the consequences,
12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are the jury for an 18 year old accused of murder. The judge states in the opening scene that it is a premeditated murder in the 1st degree, if found guilty will automatically receive the death penalty. The 18 year old male is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade, in their home. The prosecutors have several eye witness testimonies, and all of the evidence that they could need to convict the 18 year old male. In the movie it takes place on the hottest day of the year in New York City. There are 12 jurors whom are to decide if the evidence is enough to convict the teen of murder in the first degree. In the first initial vote it is 11-1. The only way that the jurors could turn in their votes was if there was unanimous vote either guilty or not guilty among the 12 jurors. As the movie progressed the jurors ended up changing their minds as new evidence was brought to their attention by simple facts that were overlooked by the police and prosecutors in the initial investigation. Tempers were raised, and words flew, there was prejudice and laziness of a few of the jurors that affected the amount of time it took to go over all of the eye witness testimonies and evidence. The eye witness testimonies ended up being proven wrong and some of the evidence was thrown out because it was put there under false pretense.
Twelve angry men is a play about twelve jurors who have to decide if the defendant is guilty of murdering his father, the play consist of many themes including prejudice, intolerance, justice , and courage. The play begins with a judge explaining to the jurors their job and how in order for the boy to be sent to death the vote must be unanimous. The jurors are then locked into a small room on a hot summer day. At first, it seems as though the verdict is obvious until juror eight decides to vote not guilty. From that moment on, the characters begin to show their true colors. Some of the characters appear to be biased and prejudice while others just want justice and the truth. Twelve Angry Men Despite many of the negative qualities we see
Based on the development of the personalities of the jurors so far in Act One, I think that juror nine will be most likely to side with juror number eight. Through examining the text presented in Reginald Rose’s play 12 Angry Men, I can infer that juror number nine is most likely to side with the adamant juror eight’s opinion on the verdict of the boy since nine’s opinions, though minimal, shed a miniscule light on his vast inner thoughts on the case. An example of this would be when juror number nine is inputting his view on how fast everyone is moving with the decision of the case when he says “It’s only one night. A man may die” (Rose 25). In other words, juror number nine does not believe that a man’s life should be taken for granted and
This essay will compare and contrast the protagonist/antagonist's relationship with each other and the other jurors in the play and in the movie versions of Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men. There aren't any changes made to the key part of the story, but yet the minor changes made in making the movie adaptation produce a different picture than what one imagines when reading the drama in the form of a play. First off, the settings in the movie are a great deal more fleshed out. In the play, the scene begins with the jurors regarding the judge's final statements concerning the case in the courtroom and then walking out into the jury room. In the movie, the audience is placed in the role of the invisible casual observer, who for perhaps the first 5 minutes of the movie, walks throughout the court building passing other court rooms, lawyers, defendants, security officers, elevators, etc.
As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate and seems to be somehow personally involved with the case. At one point, he tells the other jurors about an argument between him and his son. Juror 3 and his son had an argument which made his son run away. When his son returned to apologize, Juror 3 hit him for leaving the first time thus leading him to run away once more. He has not seen his son in two years and this has left him somewhat bitter inside. His anger toward his supposed ungrateful son is projected toward the young man on trial. Juror 3 has no concern for the life of the defendant. He makes it clear that he would have been an executioner and would have pulled the switch on the boy himself. His personal troubles have imposed on his ability to come to a verdict.
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.
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 the court case. Ignorance is shown throughout all the jurors during the play, it is also brought out through the setting of the play.
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
Reginald Rose wrote and co-produce the classic film 12 Angry Men back in 1957. It tells the story of 12 men have the life or death decision with a young man’s life and it makes every jurors question their morals and values to see if beyond a reasonable doubt the boy murdered his father. It is so popular and was such a hit it has even made references on famous TV shows like Family Guy in the 2000s and even had several remakes thought out the years, but like all movie remakes none compare to the original. In this classic MGM film 12 Angry Men, the jurors revealed their prejudices though their attitudes, stories, and beliefs.
I do not think the third juror is a sadist. He just wants this whole thing to be over, and he is siding with the bigger side, so if the life of the kid goes into a vote, he can be on the winning side. The eight juror is still stuck up about no one but the fifth and eleventh juror joining his
My favorite character from the movie was Juror 8 because he fought for what he thought was right. Comparing him with the others he was brave enough to stand out to everyone thinking the kid was not guilty. Others where to scared to speak up and just went along to what everyone else said. Juror 8 saw things that others didn’t notice. He went in deeper in the case and that’s what makes him different. He actually cared that it was the life of a kid not like the others that thought it was just easy to say he was guilty and kill him. All the jurors thought straight from the beginning that all the testimonies made from the woman and the old man where true. The small details was what made the other jurors doubt that the kid was guilty. For example
The jurors had several conflicts in disagreeing with each other and it didn't help that they would shout over one another. The very first conflict is when juror 8 voted not guilty against the 11 guilty votes. The other 11 jurors don't seem to want to hear this man out; they don't want to hear why he has voted not guilty. Some of these men, jurors 3 and 7, just want to get this case over with so they can get on with their lives. They don't think it is imperative enough to look over the evidence and put themselves in the place of the defendant. They get upset with this man and try to get him to vote guilty.
Yet, the justice system is inevitably susceptible to a flaw, as personal prejudices slip through the initial screening and become apparent in the jury room. In Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men the jury systems imperfections are addressed. He demonstrates the atmosphere of the jury room by introducing twelve characters with unique personalities. A particular character I believe to stand out from the rest would be juror ten. Upon first glance, he comes across as a bigot, but as the play continues he exhibits he is also impatient, arrogant, cantankerous and several other traits.