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

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.

One way the system is proven is through its ability to almost every time select jurors that possibly have contrasting viewpoints.

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

verdict.
The effectiveness of this system is further recognized by the diverse backgrounds brought to the table by the various jurors. In today's world diversity and respect for people who are diverse is considered by almost everybody as an important national if not a world issue. Due to the often diverse set of jurors, the prosecution is able to be examined from all viewpoints. This is shown by Juror 11 multiple times throughout 12 Angry Men for example, “INSERT”. Because of his diverse background Juror 11 is able to take the case into a different perspective as trials in his home country are different from the one before him. Some may say that too much diversity is a problem or that sometimes juries are not always as diverse as they should be. While these are valid points there can never be too many sides to examine the coin from and the statistics of un-diverse jurors is too little to disprove the effectiveness of today's jury system.
A final topic that further disproves the ineffectiveness of today's juries is the way jurors are selected to serve. Citizens are selected usually by random and summoned by mail to become part of a jury pool. From this pool, both the defense and prosecution get to eliminate jurors from the pool ensuring that both sides almost get no advantage, for example, from race, age,  or gender. It is because of this random selection that best provides a fair and even jury which in turn provides a fair and even verdict. This is shown in the film version of 12 Angry Men as the jurors consist of four black men, two European men, and 6 white men. Because of the random selection of jurors, such a diverse group was created and offered a fair trial. Some who disapprove of today's jury system would say that because of the randomness it is highly likely you will get a racist or bigot amongst the jurors. Taking into consideration of this point it is safe to conclude that this is not a valid reason to change the jury system as both sides of the case have the opportunity to pick and choose who they see fit to help their case.