Opinions Change In Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose

The room in which the men are sitting and debating the case has a table with each of the men sitting around it. Jury member number one, who sits at the head of the

When accused of being a sadist, Juror #3 responds violently with "I'll kill him!" which reveals Juror #3's volatile nature (Rose 23). His judgment is heavily persuaded by his biases and preconceptions, which can be seen in his persistence in proving the defendant guilty without using the facts and evidence given. As the play continues, Juror #3's arguments begin to crack. His emotionally driven arguments begin to crumble when challenged by other jurors with hard facts and evidence. For example, Juror #3 argues the defendant’s rough upbringing, and witness testimonies notion him to be guilty.

Also pages 16 and 21 juror proves again his point by saying “[…] the old man couldn’t have heard the boy say I’m going to kill you, but supposing he did [..] How many times has each of you used it […] this doesn’t mean that we’re going to kill you” and

This case was one of truth and justice. It becomes evident when the Juror 9 says to Juror 10. ‘Do you think you have a monopoly on truth?' [Juror 9, page 8] The fact is, nobody really knows what the truth is, and at the end of the play, still nobody does. The boy may have been guilty, but as Juror 8 pointed out, who were they to make that assumption? Most of the Jurors had taken for granted that what the prosecution had told them was the truth. Through much discussion the Jurors realised that this may

However, that wasn't the case because juror five stand up and told him that he was born in the slums and not everyone who is born in the sums become criminal’s. When the juror's started talking about the women testimony about seeing the boy stabbing his father. Juror nine points at juror twelve and tell him when you take off your glasses don't they leave marks behind on the sides of your nose and he responded with yes they do. He then makes an assumption that the women wears glasses because he saw those exact marks on the side of her nose in the courtroom. Than he perceives to say that maybe the women thought she saw the boy stabbing his own father at night. she woke up when she heard the scream and he supported his reason by asking the juror wearing the glasses if he sleeps with glasses on and he answer no I don't not one does and he said she wasn't wearing glasses so she doesn't know who she

Although this juror is puzzled at first he ends up growing confident in his vote and finds many facts to back him up. In one incident he asks juror number two and juror number four who have glasses if they sleep with their glasses on. They giggle and reply with no they do not sleep with their glasses on. Well he uses this because the lady who “witnessed” the murder wore glasses, and in order for her to have clearly been able to see the murder she would have to have her glasses on while she was in bed; since that is when she witnessed the murder. Little by little the other jurors change their vote from guilty to not guilty. And in the end justice is served and the boy is found not guilty.

With everyone else against him, he argues that he has a reasonable doubt and can’t raise his hand and send a young boy to death because of that. Juror #8, the man who voted not guilty, rallies for support and gets it when he calls for a second vote. Over the course of an hour, the jurors heatedly debate the case by discussing the validity of the accused’s story, questioning the reliability of the witnesses, examining circumstantial evidence and combating other

At the end of the play, Juror 8 casts doubt on the testimonies presented by the woman across the street, which gives Juror 4 reasonable doubt. When asked why he changed his vote by an indignant Juror 3, he simply states that “I now have a reasonable doubt.” (Rose 71) This shows how in our jury system, you cannot convict a defendant if you have reasonable doubt. Juror 4 understood the concept of reasonable doubt and shifted his vote when he had it.

The play  12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a play Novel where the theme is taken place in New York inside a empty  jury room in 1957. In the play a Judge’s is giving  instructions to the jurors. The jurors enter the empty room  as they chose to take a short break before starting the case They realize how the  room air conditioning isn’t working for the jurors to stay fresh, so you can have a guess that is around  summer season . The men complain that the room is hot and no cool air is hitting in the room ;even the fan stop work. After all,  the jurors start discussing and point out the obvious guilt of the defendant, who we learn that there is a teen accused of killing his father. Later on, the twelve Jurors take a vote. All jurors vote

The play “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose reveals human nature, personal experiences, and the men’s effect on the justice system. The play brings out how as humans we jump to conclusions without thinking things through, we don’t like to take the time and look over things, and we use our own experiences and use them to help influence our thinking. In the play, everyone but juror number eight jumps to conclusions about the young man on trial. Number eight helps guide most of the other jurors to look over the case and discover what really happened through him being unsure and not jumping to conclusions. Still, some of the others stay stuck in what they think happened. The jurors use their own past experiences to shape what they

A boy may die,” and changes his vote to “not guilty” which is another instance where the boy gets a fair trial. The 12th and 7th juror find it difficult to decide on which way to vote and therefore vote “not guilty” so that the boy is not “sent off to die.” The 12th juror’s lack of a defined and consistent point of view reflects America’s post war materialism. The 4th juror believed that the defendant was guilty for most of the play but then was the 2nd last juror to change his vote and admitted that he had a “reasonable doubt.” Although the audience never finds out whether the defendant was “guilty” or “not guilty” the jurors give the “kid from the slums” an honest trial.

Juror 3 was basing his failed relationship with his son on the accused boy. The reason that he had such a bad relationship with his son is because when the boy was young, he ran away from a fight and Juror 3 said: “I’m going to make a man out of you or I’m going to bust you up into little pieces trying”. Later on, when his son was older, they got into a fight and Juror 3 hasn’t seen him since. This experience probably left him the impression that all kids take their loved ones for granted, and that they deserve severe punishments. Juror 3 is not the type to provide the sharpest evidence or information, but he is very determined to prove that the accused really did murder the victim. Juror 8 practically gives nothing away about his real life, probably because he did not want to add his own prejudices to the case. Juror 3 gave both his ill-mannered personality and bigotry away in the play.

The play and film of Twelve Angry Men show how being in a jury requires a great deal of logic, along with the ability to look over a case thoroughly. At first, the majority of the jurors think that the boy is guilty. They all believe that there is sufficient evidence to prove it. However, juror number eight points out that there are reasonable doubts, and that there is not enough hard evidence to prove the boy guilty. Some information throughout the story is more important or major than other parts, and some information and details were changed throughout the play and the film. Even though the play and the film are similar, there are major and minor details that are changed inside of both stories that make them unique.

Evidence and reasonable doubt play major roles in this play, the men would each state facts and even some opinions of their own to make just to their side guilty or not guilty. After juror 8 ends up being the only one to vote not guilty, he is asked why he believes the boy is innocent, he answers “I don’t know” and wants to talk it out and examine all the evidence. The whole story goes around from juror to juror as they argue and one by one they each vote not guilty except two jurors do not go so easy number three and ten. One very important thing brought up by juror three in the screen play and not the movie, is the fact that the kid claimed that he had bought the knife as a present of a friend of his because he had busted the other kid’s knife on the pavement, and the fact he had broken the knife just 3 weeks before his dad was murdered, this kind of evidence was very important to the way the

To add, Juror Eight came up with possible scenarios that may have happened at the murder scene. He also put himself in the shoes of the witnesses to help the other jurors understand what may have really happened. By doing so he helped to uncover the truth about the murder through his relentless effort to prove that he was right about his claim that the boy was innocent. In Act II page 39 Juror Eight goes over the old man’s testimony just to see if everyone is on the same page, “ ...he says he got up, went out into the hall, down the hall to the front door and opened it and looked out just in time to see the boy racing down the stairs...fifteen seconds after he heard the body fall...do you mind if I try it...according to you, it’ll only take fifteen seconds.” Juror eight then continues to act the old man’s testimony out on page 41 of Act II the stage directions state, “ EIGHT begins to get up. Slowly, he swings his legs over edges of chairs, reaches for imaginary canes and struggles to his feet… EIGHT walks as a crippled old man would walk now. He goes toward chair which is serving as bedroom door. He gets