The Jury System In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

The jury system in the United States has served the country well for a long time, but it should not decide cases for the justice system in the future. While on the outside it may seem to be an efficient system, the truth is that it possesses a number of flaws that makes it unfit for the justice system. Reginald Rose’s short story, Twelve Angry Men, displays the problems with this system through the jury of a boy accused of murdering his own father. As the jurors discussed about the boy’s outcome, it grew rather obvious to the readers that there were many defects in the current jury structure, which caused unfairness within the boy’s trial. America should not continue to use the current jury system, because a juror’s judgement may be affected

by biases, they may be influenced by peer pressure, and they may not treat the jury very seriously as it doesn’t affect them.
The current jury system should not be used any furthur as biases may cloud a juror’s judgement, which is shown when juror four assumed the boy was guilty because of his slum-background.

Most people tend to believe that people raised in slums would have a higher chance of becoming a criminal than residents raised in areas with better conditions. The fourth juror believed in this stereotype as well which is why he claimed in the script that the boy was guilty because “the children who come out of slum backgrounds are potential menances to society” (p??). His claim reveals how prejudices can influence a juror’s judgement in a jury. The fourth juror determined the case with his own opinions instead of factual evidence, judging the boy for his background and not for his actions. This leads to an unfair jury as the accused boy’s fate was getting determined by an impression, which is not even something he could

control.
Additionally, a new jury system should be implemented because a juror could be influenced by the thoughts and opinions of other people, which is a problem portrayed through the scene of juror two following the other jurors’ opinions. He is a guy that is naturally more timid and doesn’t know how to stand up for himself, so the opinions of other people sways him easily. In the movie, the second juror looked at what everyone else was voting for before making a vote himself because he didn’t want to seem like the odd one out. This scene shows that there could be dishonesty in a jury because of the pressure to be like other people. Juror 2 had to lie about what he truly believed in because he was a victim of peer pressure. This made things rather unfair for the accused boy as he was not getting the support that he should actually be receiving. Some may argue that the jurors can just do a closed vote to solve the problem of peer pressure, as no one would know who voted for what. However, our current system cannot ensure that a close vote could be taken each time a vote needs to occur, as the process is more time consuming than an open vote.
Furthermore, the country should not continue to use this jury system because the chosen jurors may behave carelessly in a jury as it does not affect them, which is shown through juror 7’s action of changing his vote just so he could head home.

He had the tickets to the The Seven Year Itch the same night the jury took place, so that event would seem more important than an occurence that doesn’t influence his life by much. He grew so desperate to leave that he told the rest of the jurors he wanted to just “break it up and go home. I’m changing my vote to not guilty.” (p??). This certain scene shows that a juror may not treat the jury like the serious matter it is, especially as the time drags on. Juror 7 clearly wanted to spend his time doing something actually meaningful to himself, so he chose to simply vote with the majority’s opinion so the case could close sooner. This also means that the seventh juror did not actually dissect the evidence and simply voted out of his own benefit, which results into an unfair jury as the verdict was not completely determined by information from the

case.
As can be seen, the current jury system is not fit to decide cases for the justice system, as a juror’s judgement may be influenced by biases, their vote may be affected by peer pressure, and they may not put much effort into the case since it does not bother them. It would be ideal of the United States to revamp the system so the existing flaws would no longer be a problem. An improvement that fixes those defects would lead to fairer juries and more accurate verdicts as the jurors would have to actually examine the evidence to reach a conclusion. The justice system would then be much more efficient and many more people would actually get the justice they deserve.