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 when people follow the majority and that appeared to be a problem in the beginning of the play. The three jurors that stood out for their realism were the 7th, 8th, and 10th jurors because the 7th and 10th showed how society can be prejudice but an unbiased mediator can solve that harsh problem. In order to raise awareness, Reginald Rose presents three characters in his play Twelve Angry Men, and proposes that they are realistic jurors through their reasoning towards a unanimous verdict. The 10th Juror was realistic because of his racism towards the young boy even though he did not know him, yet the juror eventually overcame his prejudice through reasoning. Rose showed that race had nothing to do with this case when in Act II; the 10th juror snaps but is quickly ignored by the whole group when he shouted, “Now you goddamned geniuses had better listen to me. They’re violent, they’re vicious, they’re ignorant, and they will cut us up. …I say get him before his kind gets us”. ..2nd Juror: I’ve hear... ... middle of paper ... ...xperts on Real Juries: A Delicate Balance.” William & Mary Law Review 55.3 (2014): 885-933. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23 Apr. 2014. Riordan, Kate. “Ten Angry Men: Unanimous Jury Verdicts in Criminal Trials and Incorporation After Mcdonald.”Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 101.4 (2011): 1403-1433. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23 Apr. 2014. Rose, Reginald. Twelve Angry Men. New York: Penguin, 2006. Print. Weddell, Hilary. “A Jury of Whose Peers?: Eliminating Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection Procedures.” Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice 33.2 (2013): 453-486. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23 Apr. 2014. Wood, Jane L., Mark James, and Caoilte Ó. Ciardha. “‘I Know How They Must Feel': Empathy and Judging Defendants.”European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context 6.1 (2014): 37-43. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
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.
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.
Smith, William (1997) “Useful or Just Plain Unfair? The Debate Over Peremptories; Lawyers, Judges Spllit Over the Value of Jury Selection Method” The Legal Intelligencer, April 23: pg 1.
The film 12 Angry Men depicts the challenge faced by a jury as they deliberate the charges brought against an 18-year-old boy for the first-degree murder of his father. Their task is to come to an impartial verdict, based on the testimony that was heard in court. The group went through the case over and over while personal prejudices, personality differences, and tension mounted as the process evolved. While the scorching hot weather conditions and personal affairs to tend to led the juror to make quick and rash decisions, one juror convinced them the fate of the 18 year old was more important than everyone’s problems an convinced them that they could not be sure he was guilty. Juror three took the most convincing. After fighting till he
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
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 the jurors' personal prejudices come out and we the readers/viewers are able to see how this has influenced and shaped what they think.
As once Martin Luther King Jr. said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Humans are imperfect and contain fatal flaws such as lacking fairness in vast situations. In today’s modern time, many obstacles lack righteousness such as the court system. In Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose conveys the theme injustice through his characterization of contrasting juror 3 and juror 8 using character foil and the extensive archetypal use of light vs darkness.
The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in a population. The juror that seemed interesting is Juror #8, who was played by Henry Fonda. Juror #8, or Davis, is an architect, the first dissenter and protagonist in the film. He was the first one to declare that the young man was innocent and he managed to convince the other jurors to see his point of view. Durkheim states that when we respond to deviance, it brings people together (Macionis, 2013, p. 159). We affirm the moral ties that bind us together, which was seen in the movie. At first, almost all of the jurors were so bent on convicting the young man based on their feelings, but they then started to analyze the facts and they came together to make their final decision.
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.
Stevenson, D 2012, The function of uncertainty within jury systems, George Mason Law Review, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 513-548, viewed 6 May 2014, .
Stevenson, Bryan A. Illegal Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection. Rep. Montgomery, Alabama: Equal Justice Initiative, 2010. Print.
The American courtroom drama teleplay ’12 Angry Men’ by Reginald Rose is a classic and highlights the flaws of the judicial system. Published in 1954, the play is set in a jury room in New York. It focuses on the 12 members of the jury having to deliberate and try reach a unanimous decision that will determine the defendant’s fate. This essay will argue that Reginald Roses’ play will continue to be relevant due to its similarity of flaws and imperfections in the judicial system, which will be shown on various levels, and how in today’s society we still encounter these issues. This is displayed through the deliberate construction of character relationships and enduring themes of prejudice.
He is also the last juror to vote the defendant not guilty. The author of “The 50th Anniversary of 12 Angry Men: Mad About 12 Angry Men” asserts “[h]e too has been an abusive father, and the result has been violence and schism in his family. The harm suffered is not just to his child but to Juror #3 himself” (Landsman 3). According to Landsman, the third juror has been “an abusive father”, which means that he bases his decision off of his personal experiences. Discrimination is oftentimes caused by the assumptions created by the experiences of the people. Clearly, the third juror believes that the defendant is also a ruthless murderer. He compares the defendant to his own son, whom he has abused and been abused by. Landsman also states that the third juror is “so angry about his son that he lets his feelings destroy his ability to deliberate rationally” (4). Judging others based on personal feelings is unfair and should not be allowed in the court
Observing all the jurors, they all have different thoughts and belief about why they are truly there to determine the young boys fate. Juror seven, the individual who was obsessed with going to a baseball game, seemed not to care about the boys fate, and was self-centered. Then there were some who were so focused on facts said in court, and would not look at the circumstances surrounding the facts, for example: that there was only one switch knife like that in the world, however, that was proven wrong. Juror three was overcome by entire case, because of his son running away two years before, because the juror beat him “until he was a man.” The tenth juror allowed his prejudice mind to effect his decision, it was not until the end that he knew what he was saying was racists and held no facts (everyone is human). Juror twelve made me the most upset because he was easily bullied into a different decision every time someone talked; he truly was playing both sides.