Twelve Angry Men, by Emmy Award winning author Reginald Rose, is a play set in the 19th century, where twelve single-minded and petulant jurors are placed in a crowded room on the hottest day of the year to adjudicate a nineteen year old boy guilty of murdering his father or innocent. These men must rise above various obstacles that obscure the truth, individually and as an entire group. In writing this play, Mr. Reginald Rose portrays a clear message- we must never be blinded by personal prejudice or racial bias. Jurors Eight, Three, and Ten can fully prove that. Juror Eight was to first to overlook bias and really look at the entire case with perspective. While all the other jurors voted guilty purely because the boy was raised in a slum and was Puerto Rican, Juror Eight voted not guilty for a chance to discuss the case like a proper jury should. Willing to go against eleven other flustered and aggressive men, Juror Eight was a surprisingly audacious and open-minded man. “It’s not so easy for me to raise my …show more content…
hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first (Pg 315),” says Juror Eight when asked why he declared not guilty. Unlike the other, Juror Eight did not let the defendant’s nationality or reputation impinge upon his objective decision. On the contrary, Juror Three let both personal prejudice and racial bias obstruct actuality. When Juror Three’s son ran away, he thought that he himself wasn't to blame; rather, it was his own son’s fault. He concluded that children undervalue their parents and are not to be trusted under any circumstances. Juror Three also holds a strong notion that people who are Puerto Rican or a similar race are fit to be ruthless and cold-blooded killers. “You come in here with your heart bleeding all over the floor about slum kids and injustice… and you've got some soft- hearted old ladies listening to you… This kid is guilty! He’s got to burn!” Juror Three exclaims when some of the other jurors start to show a reasonable doubt regarding the validity of the testimonies. Juror Three was incapable of seeing the truth clearly because he could not disregard his own prejudice. Last, Juror Ten was a character who was so racially biased that it became disparaging even to the other jurors. During his monologue to the other jurors, he says, “...they get drunk, and bang, someone’s lying in the gutter. That’s how they are!... Violent!... They’re no good. Take it from me.” Juror Ten clearly insinuated that people who are raised in the hovel are criminals and should not be trusted. However, this is a rude and accusing statement that insults the boy’s innocence and the Jurors themselves. Juror Ten knows no limit as to when he must reign in his own racial bias when making important, life-changing decisions. In writing the play “Twelve Angry Men”, author Reginald Rose conveys many life lessons and values, one of the most implied telling the readers to see past ethnic bias or preconceived notions in order to fully uncover concealed truths.
In the movie adaptation of Twelve Angry Men, Juror Three, Eight, and Ten were very similar to their characters from the original play. However, in the movie, Juror Three was even more jaundiced than he was in the script; he based his corroboration on past experience with his own children. Juror Ten was also more prepossessed in the movie, stating that people from the slum were “born liars”. On the other hand, the playscript portrayed Juror Eight as a kinder but more audacious man who was bold and confident with his opinions. In summary, although the movie adaptation portrays this essay’s proposition more clearly, both versions of the play Twelve Angry Men prove that discrimination and prejudice will muddy the waters of
truth.
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.
Juror 6 seems to be part of one of the characters’ whose intentions exhibit otherwise. He proclaims vociferously, “It’s pretty obvious, I mean, I was convinced from the first day”. This sentiment provides compelling evidence as to what the Juror’s intentions and perspectives were, towards the alleged sixteen-year-old. In addition, an important factor that can be taken into consideration is the factor of civic responsibility, which he didn’t uphold properly. In fact, it was proved to have biased, prejudiced and pre-conceptualised
In the play, 12 Angry Men, written by the well-known writer and producer, Reginald Rose, sets the scene in a stuffy jury room on an extremely hot day where 12 jurors must deem whether a boy is guilty for the murder of his father. The jurors struggle to reach a unanimous decision, as tension between the jurors builds up. The author delivers several clear messages through his play such as standing up for what you believe in, and always pursuing the truth. Often times personal feelings, prejudices, and fear of voicing opinions prevent the truth from being exposed.
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,
Juror #3 is very biased against the 19-year-old boy that is being tried, and this affects all of his thoughts and actions regarding the case. He has this bias because his own son hit him in the jaw and ran away from home at the age of 15: “I’ve got a kid…when he was fifteen he hit me in the face…I haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids! You work your heart out [but it’s no use] (21).”According to this quote from the text, this juror condemns all teenagers and feels resentment towards them. He especially feels strongly about the boy being tried, because the boy grew up in the slums, and this juror is also biased against these people who grew up there. It is because of these feelings that he is strongly cemented in his vote of guilty.
... 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 problem that has been tormenting the eight juror is that no other jurors, other then the fifth juror agree with him. The eight juror claims that the boy is not guilty, but since everyone believes that he committed the murder, he has to convince them that he's right. Everyone is also accusing him for his opinion, which is making him frustrated.
Despite knowing how angry the other men would be at him, the 8th juror stood up for the defendant and did what he could to make sure the boy had a fair trial. From the beginning, Juror eight was clearly confident in what he believed in and did not care about how foolish he looked. The confidence he showed brought the other jurors to rethink their vote. Juror nine was the first person to recognize the amount of courage it took for juror eight to stand up against the men. After being the first to change his vote nine explains “This gentleman chose to stand alone against us. That’s his right. It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone even if you believe in something very strongly. He left the verdict up to us. He gambled for support and I gave it to him. I want to hear more. The vote is ten to two.” The 9th juror agreed with the eight juror about wanting justice. By standing up for justice he gave nine the courage to stand up for the same reason. Juror eight continued to be consistent with what he believed in. Never did he
The Twelve Angry Men was about a boy who was accused of stabbing his father to death in a argument. In the beginning of the trial all twelve of the juror's voted guilty. Many of the juror's were mean and did not care about the boy's future they just wanted to get the trial over with so the juror's can do what they wanted to do. Later in the case one of the juror's realized they were messing with a boys life and his future was all up to them. So a juror realized that some of the information that a witness brought up had to be false. So they analyzed the information and came to the conclusion that the boy could not have stabbed his father the way he did because one of the juror's had seen many knife fight's in his backyard and you can not stab someone downward with a switchblade. Also another witness said that the knife that the kid had could be bought anywhere. The juror's discriminated the boy because he lived in the slums , he has a criminal record and he was always fighting with his dad so they just assumed he was the one that killed his dad.
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...
Weiler, A. H. "Screen: '12 Angry Men'; Jury Room Drama Has Debut at Capitol." The New York Times. New York Times Company, 15 Apr. 1957. Web. 17 Mar. 2014.
This can be exemplified by the fate suffered by the Scottsboro boys after they were accused of raping two white women. Although there was no evidence to prove their guilt, the all-white juries in their trials still found them guilty and sentenced them to life in prison (Pettengill, 10-5-2015). This unjust approach towards African Americans is portrayed in Bigger’s trial and is highlighted by Max’s words “And not only is this man a criminal, but a black criminal. And as such, he comes into court under handicap, notwithstanding our pretensions that all are equal before the law” (Wright, 1518). The trial is not truly representative of justice, but just a show for the public, and allowing an all-white jury to decide on Bigger’s fate is unfair because their minds are already conditioned by the press of the nation which has already reached a decision as to his guilt. Using Bessie’s body, not as real evidence, but to incite anger in the jurors and to make them see Bigger as a true criminal and sway their decision into an affirmative guilty decision shows how once again, a black body is being exploited by whites to uphold their prejudiced views of African Americans.
One surprising fact would be that the case would’ve come to a fast conclusion of a guilty verdict had it not been for Juror number eight disagreeing. He had a firm belief that the kid was innocent that he would stop at nothing to convince the other jurors he had a valid point. Yet, society has greatly changed and to come across someone so influential is rare. For starters, a jury trial is meant to represent the community in which the trial is taking place and it should include an equal amount of diversity compared to the community. Since this case took place in New York, it is impractical to have an all-white male jury today.