12 Assumptive Men Originally published in 1955, Reginald Rose’s play, “Twelve Angry Men”, focuses on a jury’s decision of a juvenile Puerto Rican who has been put on trial for the murder of his father. The twelve jurors dance with the decision of charging the boy innocent or guilty through biased arguments and occasional fronts of corrupted reasoning. Aggressively, they deliberate the fate of the boy and jostle for a unanimous vote. As the jurors argue and negotiate, the personality and behavior of each reflects in the assumptions and conclusions they compile to be their final decision. Based on the play, people’s behavior and how they perceive facts is greatly based on the type of assumptions they make and their bias towards people in society. …show more content…
Along with his high social status, he is contentious and narcissistic which plays into his distaste for the other jurors’ unruly behavior. His arrogance plays directly into how he constructs presumptions throughout the duration of the decision. The Puerto Rican’s upbringing and current lifestyle is the diametrical opposite of Juror number 4’s which results in his inferior thinking when discussing the boy. Affirmatively, he states in the play, “We’re not here to go into the reasons of why slums are breeding grounds for criminals.” After his statement, he goes on about how he finds the boy’s alibi ridiculous and the resulting argument unnecessary. His idea that the criminals are the product of the local slums is nothing of solid evidence but more a presumption and prejudice set upon by his arrogant mindset. Juror number 10’s selfish and arrogant thinking is displayed in his assumptive prejudice of the people who reside in the …show more content…
He “sees all sides of justice and constantly seeks the truth” which is shown through the statements he makes throughout the jury decision. When the jurors discussed the possibility clearly seeing anything through a moving train, juror number 12 objected, “Somehow I felt that the defense counsel never really conduced a through cross-examination. Too many questions were left unasked.” As stated, he believes that the defense counsel didn’t examine the room and the train schematics which directly plays into his behavior which is looking at all the angles of the question. His objection shows that his assumptions are based solely on what he knows is accurate and looking at all sides of the current question. In the case of juror number 8, people’s behavior of searching for the truth plays into their attempted close-to-accurate assumptions in the world around
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.
The play, ‘Twelve Angry men’, written by Reginald Rose, explores the thrilling story of how twelve different orientated jurors express their perceptions towards a delinquent crime, allegedly committed by a black, sixteen-year-old. Throughout the duration of the play, we witness how the juror’s background ordeals and presumptuous assumptions influence the way they conceptualise the whole testimony itself.
Juror number eight is the main protagonist, he also a reserved with his thoughts, yet very strategic with them. He is the defender of the down trodden victim. He has a calm rational approach to everything and he reveals the gaps in the testimonies placed against the defendant. These examples would be; that the old man couldn’t have seen the boy run out of the house, as the old man had a limp and therefore could not make it to the door in time. The old lady across the road could have never saw the boy stab his father, due to she wasn’t wearing her glasses and it was pitch black. Number eight is a man that s...
Prejudices cause peoples’ perceptions to be altered. The jurors are presented quite a bit about the boy’s background, and his records. Juror Ten struggles to see past the stereotypes and judges the boy based on his past actions. Juror Ten claims,” He’s a common ignorant slob. He don’t even speak good English,” (326). What is so ironic about this statement is that Ten claims the boy is dense and bases this claim on the fact that he can’t speak English well. However as corrected by Eleven, it is “doesn’t” not “does”. Perhaps the boy learned from his mistakes and sought to change. That is what life is all about. We fall down and hopefully learn from our mistakes so that we can create a better future for ourselves. Juror Ten is firmly set on the idea that the court covered everything by repeatedly saying, “They proved it,’’ on page 317. Unlike Eight he is not open-minded. As a juror it is important to be skeptics because the in court, lawyers may have presented information in such a way that information is perceived differently. Also crucial information may have not have been analyzed carefully. It’s important not to dwell on the past; its also keep prejudices from exposing you to
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
Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three
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.
... I've lived among them all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that. I mean, they're born liars.” In this statement you can clearly tell his prejudice against the kid, just because of where he was raised. Juror # 10 and juror # 3 has prejudice against the kid. Juror # 3 has personal experience with a kid like the accused. “Reminded of his own family's personal crisis, Juror # 3 tells the jurors of his own disrespectful, teen aged boy who hit him on the jaw when he was 16. Now 22 years old, the boy hasn't been seen for two years, and the juror is embittered: "Kids! Ya work your heart out."” This is a direct example of juror # 3’s prejudice against the accused. When prejudice was in effect in the movie, it clouded the judgments of the jurors that were prejudice against the boy just because he was raised in the slums.
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
Standing up for what one believes in is not always easy. The book Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose should be taught in schools for many reasons. The book is about the trial of a sixteen year old boy accused of killing his father. The boy’s fate is determined by the decision reached by twelve jurors in a New York jury room. Twelve Angry Men displays the effects that one person can have on a group, it teaches the value of being part of a jury, and it explores how stereotypes and prejudices can have an effect on someone’s decision or beliefs.
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
In the play Twelve Angry Men, a boy is on trial for supposedly murdering his father after a night of arguing. Rodney King, twenty-five, was beaten by four caucasian Los Angeles Police Department officers on March 3, 1991 (CNN Wire 1). On this day, King was pulled over for exceeding the speed limit while intoxicated (Kaplan 1). The jury of both of these cases played a major role in the verdict of each case. In the play Twelve Angry Men, the twelve men that make up the jury are faced with a difficult decision to make; deciding whether or not a nineteen year old boy was guilty of murder. Fast forwarding forty-three years later, twelve jurors were given the Rodney King case in which they had to decide the fate of the four Los Angeles officers that brutally beat Rodney King, an African-American citizen. Being a member of the jury on the Rodney King case must have been a difficult task given the evidence surrounding the trial.
... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.
These two jurors are almost the plain opposite of each other. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant man accustomed of forcing his wishes and views upon others. On the other hand, Juror 8 is an honest man who keeps an open mind for both evidence and reasonable doubt. Since these two people are indeed very different, they both have singular thoughts relating to the murder case. Juror 8 is a man who is loyal to justice. In the beginning of the play, he was the only one to vote ‘not guilty’ the first time the twelve men called a vote. Although his personality is reflected on being a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man, he is still a very persistent person who will fight for justice to be done. Juror 8 is a convincing man who presents his arguments well, but can also be seen as manipulative. An example would be when he kept provoking Juror 3 until he finally said “I’m going to kill you" to Juror 8. He did this because he wanted to prove that saying "I’ll kill you" doesn’t necessarily mean that Juror 3 was actually going to kill him. Juror 3 is a totally different character. He is a stubborn man who can be detected with a streak of sad...
The story as a whole was inspired by Reginald Rose’s experience of jury duty in New York City. At first he was reluctant to serve on the jury, but he ended up telling in a press meet “ The Moment I Walked into the courtroom and found myself facing a strange man, whose fate is suddenly more or less in my hands, my entire attitude changed.” The words from Rose showed the pressure he faced inside the courtroom and his personal conscience he had not to make a mistake with the decision. The overview of the story is an engrossing drama in which eleven jurors believe the accused is guilty,