Words: 919
At the start, eleven out of the try&lve jurymen believe that the man is without any doubt Guilty’. However, after a long and dated discussion, all twelve men come down to a unanimous knot guilty’ vote, During this time, Rose questions the justice system by expressing themes such as prejudice, ignorance, racism, and past experiences, all of Which may hinder the path to the real truth, and finally justice. The three most important jurors that Rose has used to explain these themes are the jurors 8, 10, and 3. Juror 8 is the voice of reason, and the most crucial to the play.
At the start, he is the only member of the jury who votes I]not guilty’ and withstands the pressure of all of the other eleven jury ‘Limbers. It’s not easy for we to raise my hand and send a boy tot to die without talking about it. ” By doing this, he opens the other jury members minds to the possibility that the accused may be [Snot guilty’, and immediately gains the respect and admiration of the audience. He is calm, cool, and collected, and is probably one of the few jury members who fully understands his role.
Rose has used juror nu member eight to bring in the process of deliberation, from where the feelings and beliefs of the other jury members are voiced. Juror 8 is also the first to question the evidence that is brought forward. The knife that was supposedly unique and one Of a kind, was proved otherwise by his possession Of the same knife Along With this, juror 8 approaches the trial logically, and tries to find flaws and discrepancies that the other jurors have missed. The persuasive language that he uses is neither aggressive nor subjective, but rather assertive and objective.
In doing this. And by taking an intelligent and analytical approach to the trial, he is the main character that Rose has used to persuade the other jury members and the audience. Simple reasoning, along with being fair and pen minded gives him the qualities that eventually decides the case as Cannot guilty’. Juror 10 is almost completely the opposite of juror 8. He is racist, discriminatory, and is the best example in the jury room of prejudice. This is seen when the juror refers to the people living in the Bronx, such as the Latino teenager on trial, as They’ and L]them’.
His generalization on the whole of people living in the Bronx tells the audience that he is ignorant and racist, and Rose has positioned us to strongly dislike him. He has furthered this dislike for the character, by making the juror selfish, arrogant, and highly egoistical. “You’re not going to tell us that we’re supposed to believe the kid, knowing what he is. Listen, 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. It is through this juror that Rose has expressed the themes of ignorance, racism, and prejudice, and shown how it can cloud ones decision, and possibly change the fate of an innocent person. This has in turn shown that the courts and judicial system that was present in those days and still is now, was flawed and far from perfect. Thus, it was both relevant and true, when juror 8 chose to speak he words, “Prejudice obscures the truth. ” Possibly one of the most crucial and important lines in the play. Along with juror 8, jury 3 is without doubt the most important juror to the play.
He is the last juror out of the twelve, who decides to change his vote to Not guilty’. From the very beginning, it is easy to note that juror 3, unlike the other jurors, brings heart into his decision. This is identified through his manner of speaking that is subjective, aggressive, biased, and opinionated. As the facts about the certainty that the boy is Guilty’ become flawed, the umber of people voting њguilty’ slowly decreases. With each person changing their vote to L]not guilty’, juror three becomes more and more hot- tempered and emotional.
From this, it can be said adjustor 3 had already come up with a prejudiced decision, and unlike juror 1 0, he did not sway from his decision as quickly because he had decided on the verdict using his heart and not his mind. The reason for why he voted Guilty’ so resolutely for so long even with the facts against him is known only at the end of the play when juror 3 finally votes Don’t guilty’. It was because juror 3 had had negative experiences in the past with teenagers such as his own son. “It’s the kids, the way they are nowadays. Angry! Hostile! You can’t do a damn thing with them.
Just the way they talk to you. ” Through this juror, Rose has identified another theme important to the play, past experiences. It is clear from this, that juror three is still suffering from the loss of his son who had run away from home, and the verdict that he decided on the trial was heavily biased by this fact alone. The play 1 2 Angry Men has focused on many issues about the justice system during that time. It has tried to show the imperfections and flaws by identifying that prejudice, ignorance, racism, and past experiences, all play a huge part in the final verdict.