The Portrayal Of Truth In Twelve Angry Men, By Reginald Rose

Therefore, other jurors believe that after his acts of anger, he is over the top and their trust in his thoughts begins to waver. Regardless of the majorities vote, juror three’s vote remains unchanged from guilty because of his highly opinionated attitude and prejudiced ways. Juror eight’s bigoted traits and statements eventually cause all the other jurors to leave him for juror eight’s

In this novel, twelve jurors are designated to choose the verdict of a case. A sixteen-year-old boy is accused of murdering his father. If the jurors’ verdict is guilty, then the boy will receive a death sentence. The chosen jurors are locked in a room to decide the verdict, guilty or innocent. At the beginning, only one juror chose to vote not guilty, for the sake of reasonable doubt. The juror made thought out points and persuasively changed all other other jurors minds. By the end, all jurors chose to vote not guilty, except one. This particular juror voted guilty because he compared the defendant to his own son, whom he had problems with. This prejudice blocked his mind, making him confuse facts with his own judgment.

After carefully evaluating the evidence, each of you must decide whether or not that evidence convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. ”(Presumption of Innocence paragraph 8)- this quote shows how a jury is supposed to go into a case, but in Twelve Angry Men a lot of the jury members, including Juror 7 went into the case thinking the defendant is guilty, which is also known as personal bias. Juror 7 thought this was because of the defendant's background and where he grew up. Furthermore, the 7th juror's journey also highlights the challenges inherent in the jury system, particularly regarding personal biases and the influence of peer pressure. "He's an ignorant kid who's been in trouble with the law ever since he was born.

In ‘Twelve Angry Men’, written by Reginald Rose, juror three sees his son as the alleged and cannot wait to punish him, however, the prejudice he has against the alleged criminal urges juror three to take action as quickly as possible and votes a persistent ‘guilty’ verdict. Throughout the play, juror three is seen as an old, bitter man who makes his decisions based on his son and not his own conscience. When he is a part of the jury, he has the chance to be fair and reasonable, which he passes up the opportunity. He “[feels] that knife going in” when he talks about his son and how he finds a similarity in both the

Slums are breeding grounds for criminals. children from slums are potential menaces to society.” (Rose 18) This presents the fact that Juror 4 is being biased against the defendant, which goes against the jury system and the presumption of innocence. Also, “Self deception can be like a drug, numbing you from the harsh reality or turning a blind eye to the tough matter of gathering evidence and thinking.

In Reginald Rose's classic play "12 Angry Men," Juror Number 5 stands out as a character whose journey from uncertainty to confidence reflects the play's exploration of justice and human nature. Set in a tense jury room deliberating the fate of a young man accused of murder, Juror Number 5 initially appears timid and uncertain, but as the story progresses, he finds his voice and plays a crucial role in the quest for truth and justice. At the beginning of the play, Juror Number 5 is introduced as a young man from a similar background to the defendant, giving him a unique perspective on the case. He appears hesitant and deferential, lacking confidence in his ability to contribute meaningfully to the deliberations. This uncertainty is evident

In the 12 angry men by Reginald Rose all the jurors have their own points of view on the trial. However, two jurors have perspectives that are similar on the surface but in fact feature many differences when analyzed in depth. They are juror #8 and #10. In particular, these differences and similarities are depicted through their methods in proving the boy guilty of murder. Their differences and similarities show how the idea of justice may vary from one individual to another.

At the beginning of Reginald Rose’s play, Twelve Angry Men (1955), the judge states, “it now becomes your duty to try to separate the facts from the fancy”. At stake is the fate of a 16-year-old boy who is on trial for the murder of his father. As the discussion unfolds, many difficulties emerge among the 12 jurors whose various experiences and backgrounds as well as their varied life narratives fuel tension.

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.

Similarly ,In Twelve Angry Men Juror 8 is a smart and moral juror who is willing to stand against all the other jurors for what he thinks is right. He is the main protagonist who believes a boy accused with murdering his father deserves a discussion prior to a guilty verdict. Although all the other jurors initially voted guilty, juror 8 believed that the jurors should not “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”(Juror 8, 12). Throughout the play Juror 8 combats the pressure from the other Jurors to just vote guilty and manages to convince his fellow Jurors one by one that there in fact is “reasonable doubt”(Judge, 6) and convinces them to arrive at a “not guilty”(Juror 3, 72) verdict. Reginald Rose extols Juror 8’s pursuit of justice through his success. Not only did Juror 8 stand by his principles and have the courage to stand against all the other Jurors, he also had the wits to convince his fellow jurors to change their verdict. Through these actions Juror 8 brings justice to the courts of New York city saving the life of a young boy.

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

From their first introduction, it is obvious that jurors 3 and 10 stand out from their negativity toward the case, stemming from their prejudice against the accused boy. Whilst Rose has juror 10’s thoughts apparent from the beginning – “the kids who crawl outa those places (slums) are real trash” – it is only toward the finale that we see 10’s true sinister point of view – “they are–wild animals”, “they’re violent, they’re vicious, they’re ignorant, and they will cut us up”. Whilst juror 3 shares a similar stance, his prejudice targets the youth over slum people. As it is revealed that he has had an inconvenient history with his son, 3 uses the trial as revenge on him, thinking all kids are the same, and placing himself in the position of the murdered father, as he eventually “[could] feel that knife goin’ in”. As mentioned by juror 8, the moral compass, “it’s very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this”, bringing attention to a recurringly problem with the validity of the justice system. “Prejudice obscures the

On “Twelve Angry Men” Juror 8 refuses to believe the boy was guilty because he was justice to be done and he fight to see it. On page3 juror 8 said “ [….] Its not easy for me to raise my hand and send s boy off to die without talking about it first”. This proves that juror 8 didn’t care the decision of the others jurors because he wanted to make a difference and talk about al the facts.

Throughout the play, Juror 4 states the importance of focusing on logical facts and evidence. In the trial he states, “Gentlemen, let me remind you this case is based on a reasonable and logical progression of facts. Let’s keep it there. ”(Rose 36)

The jurors are transformed by the process of deliberating. Eleven men voted guilty because of their prejudices, fears, laziness and insecurities, but they are eventually persuaded by reason to give up these limiting beliefs, to see the potential in the facts, and to find justice. The critical turning points in the jury votes occur, not when there is passion and anger, but when there is reasoned discussion, as the rational Juror 8 triumphs over the prejudices of his fellow jurors. The facts of the case do not change, but the jurors come to see the facts differently, and change by the process they go through. Despite the hostility and tension created in this process, the twelve men end up reconciled, and justice is done.