Twelve angry men
Uploaded by kathylambchop on Nov 07, 2002
After his first experience on a jury about a manslaughter case, Reginald Rose expressed his insights in his timeless play- Twelve Angry Men. The play focuses on twelve randomly selected citizen who are assigned with the civil duty of determining the fate of a nineteen year old boy accused of murdering his father. The jury is suppose to be the most impartial system of securing justice yet this is not always reached in practice. Factors such as emotions and prejudices can often affect the decision of each juror. However, Rose also examines one individual’s struggle against other individuals to ensure “justice for all.” Although the play has been remade and reworked several times, it is Rose’s characters and their dialogue that capture the audience as Claire Devlin states:
….the razor sharp script demand intelligence from the audience as we realise that the final verdict is not as important as what we learn fro each of these characters and ourselves as a result.
Juror Eight, the protagonist of the play was the first to vote the “not guilty” verdict. He was firstly affected by the thought that he and eleven men were to decide whether to “end this boy’s life which was just beginning” in what appeared to be an “open and shut case.” One of his most noticeable strengths was his courage to stand alone and fight for what he believed in. Although he was a quiet, thoughtful gentleman, he was not afraid to voice his opinions. He knew everyone would not be happy with his decision but he insisted on cross examining all the evidence and “facts” before coming to his decision:
It’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.
Posing questions like “could it be possible?” and “could he be wrong?” he reminded others that in our justice system, innocence is knowing there is a reasonable doubt to believe a person is not guilty. Indeed, he admitted that he didn’t know whether the boy was guilty or not, but he believed that everyone deserved justice and a “fair trial.” Unlike most of the others, he was not governed by personal prejudices and rash decisions. Being an architect in the workforce, Juror Eight reflected his analytical and logical qualities in the jury room. He even reacted the old man running approximately forty-five metes and disproved the man’s fifteen seconds...