Category: 12 Angry Men

The court delegated to the jury the task of determining whether or not the accused was guilty of murder and premeditated homicide accusations. The article describes how several characters have demonstrated their knowledge, efficacy, ethics, and talents in an attempt to reach the proper conclusion about the accused mainly focusing on jurors 1 and 5. Juror 1 makes an admirable effort to keep other jurors in line as he is the foreman of the jury responsible for keeping the group under control (Alazas 7). Juror 5 is a courteous person who seems shy and does not talk during most of the deliberations of other jurors since he understands when to speak despite his quiet demeanor.

Juror 5 has a good understanding of slum life because he admits to having lived in one his entire life and tells how rubbish was piled up in his backyard. This knowledge helped him during the demonstration on switching knives and contested usage (Reginald 21). Moreover, the other jurors were focused on their agendas while the rest of the jury was focused on providing the proper judgment on whether the accused was guilty or not (Reginald 56). This is notably clear with juror 7, who is focused on adjourning the conference so that he may return home while others are attempting to get the right decision.

Juror 1 presided over the deliberation, which had the goal of determining whether the accused was guilty or not. He orders the jurors to sit down, for example, and when jury 8 continues to stare out the window, he tells him to seat (Reginald 13). He also spends most of his time trying to keep the peace and helps to keep the conversation alive. Juror 5 is hesitant to express his opinions but speaks out when the other jurors criticize residents from the slum. He is defensive in that he tries to defend the accused because they both originated from the slums.

Works Cited

Alazas, Jacquelyn Grace R. Turning Sorrow into Service: Juror Five in Twelve Angry Men. Diss. Regent University, 2020.

Reginald, Rose.Twelve Angry Men. The Dramatic Publishing Company, 1964, p. 21, 56, 13, Web.

The jury in Twelve Angry Men struggles to achieve a unanimous ruling for various reasons. The author demonstrates how difficult it is to get a decision when jurors have preconceived beliefs and bring personal prejudice to a case, as well as Jurors who lack interest. These concerns, without a doubt, produce disputes and difficulties in the Jury system, highlighting a potential flaw in the democratic process. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that Juror 8 is one of the few Jurors who first deliberate honestly and seriously and wants justice. Rose argues that active participation is required to ensure that the jury system works as intended and that the final verdict is simpler to attain when this occurs. Rose believes it is difficult for the jury to reach a decision when the Jurors have predetermined notions and exhibit bigotry.

The author illustrates the problem with people having personal prejudices in a case since it can blind them to the facts. This, in turn, makes it difficult for the Jurors to reach a consensus since it impairs their capacity to reason and understand things from anothers perspective. This point is emphasized by the venomous Juror 10, who represents bigotry and prejudice. Juror 10 exemplifies racisms potential strength, believing that the kids who crawl outta those places are real trash(Rose 30). Finally, this preconceived notion makes it impossible to form a realistic view of the subject since it closes the door to his capacity to consider it from a different perspective. Furthermore, he finds it challenging to achieve an agreement since he is unwilling to separate the facts from the fancy (Rose 11). As a result of his reluctance to recognize reasonable doubt in the case, jury 10s animosity might be seen as causing difficulty in concluding.

Furthermore, the dispute created by numerous jurors predispositions adds to the difficulties in obtaining a final decision. This is because it fosters an environment of resentment and suspicion among the jurors. For instance, jurors 3 and 8 disagree when jury 8 refers to juror 3 as a sadist, and a self-appointed public avenger who wants the boy to die because [he] personally want it, not because of the facts (Rose 73). This causes resentment between the two jurors, which is not resolved until jury 3 sees his bias and votes not guilty. Nevertheless, his hostility toward jury 8 makes convincing him of the reasonable doubt in the case exceedingly difficult (Rose 73). Juror 3s rage eventually diminishes, and he recognizes his prejudice when it is brought to his attention. This procedure is quite complex, which adds to the difficulty of obtaining a final decision.

Rose emphasizes the difficulties in reaching a final judgment by highlighting those who bring personal predisposition to a case. The author emphasizes the impact of personal prejudice on ones capacity to consider somewhat via jury 3. Juror 3s emotional baggage prevents him from effectively participating in the democratic process and determining the defendants guilt or innocence (Rose 72). Rose claims it is easier to agree with rigorous thinking since bias inhibits individuals from carrying out their civic responsibility. Juror 3s prejudices and experiences are underscored by his notion that the defendant has got to burn (Rose 72). This implies that it is difficult to understand things from a different perspective if an individual is preoccupied with personal difficulties.

Juror 3s unwillingness to listen to the other jurors viewpoints and only agree with those who see it from his point of view highlights his difficulty in reaching a final judgment. This is emphasized by his repeated agreement with people who condemn the youngster, as he remarks, listen to this man. He knows what hes talking about, and hes absolutely right (Rose 35). His personal bias prohibits him from considering the other Jurors perspectives, and he can only agree with those who condemn the defendant. Rose expresses how difficult it is to obtain a final judgment when prejudiced jurors are closed-minded and unwilling to entertain different viewpoints.

Rose emphasizes how difficult it might be to get a final judgment when people demonstrate a lack of interest in the issue and are unwilling to think for themselves. The author argues that individuals unwilling to take the matter seriously endanger the system and make reaching a final conclusion difficult (Rose 72). Juror 7 is uninterested in the jury process because he is more preoccupied with his well-being than honestly debating and discussing the issue (Rose 75). He symbolizes individuals who prioritize self-interest over public responsibility, making it difficult for him to contribute to the ultimate judgment conclusion.

While reaching a final judgment is challenging, Rose says that the jury system necessitates involvement for a verdict to be reached. Juror 8 is one of the few jurors willing to go against the majority and safeguard the democratic process (Rose 12). It is difficult to conclude since Juror 8 is the only one who first perceives this as grave responsibility because the death sentence is mandatory (Rose 12). He expresses concern for the matter by inciting debate and seeking justice. However, the fact that many other jurors need help understanding the procedure shows that reaching an agreement will be easier with active participation.

Active engagement is what permits the process to grow and makes it simpler to reach a decision. This is seen in the willingness of quiet Jurors such as Juror 2 to engage and contribute to the case, making it simpler to reach a final judgment. This is shown when he interrogates witnesses about the business about the stab wound and how it was made (Rose 92). His capacity to participate in debate implies that involvement is required in reaching a final decision. Furthermore, Juror 9s involvement catches up on the elderly ladys eyesight, which is the ultimate result. As a result, Rose emphasizes that participation from the jury system is essential for a final decision to be obtained. Furthermore, with participation, reaching an agreement is easier.

In the United States in 1957, juries were designed to reflect a cross-section of society, consisting solely of white men of all ages, values, and opinions. This collision of perspectives, particularly in Twelve Angry Men, automatically leads to disagreement, making it exceedingly difficult for the jury to reach a unanimous conclusion. Juror 11, for example, an immigrant from Germany, evidently valued the democratic system enormously due to his experiences in other undemocratic nations (Rose 14). Other jurors, on the other hand, such as juror 3, have grown to take the democratic system and the opportunity to serve on a jury for granted. Jury 3s remark shows this when asked about the trial, that [he] was falling asleep (Rose 14). Juror 3 has had many past experiences with this social responsibility, which has contributed to his lethargy. The audience might interpret this duality as evidence of the jurys diversity of ideas. As a result, the process of reaching a decision becomes necessarily lengthy.

In conclusion, the author, Rose, emphasizes how difficult it is to get a unanimous decision when jurors have preconceived notions, prejudice, and bigotry and are uninterested in the issue. With detailed and specific examples, the author provides a clear depiction of how jurors 10, 3,9, and 7 prejudice and personal opinions affect the final verdict. He does, however, propose that when Jurors contribute and actively engage, a consensus is eventually obtained.

Work Cited

Rose, Reginald. Twelve Angry Men. 1954.

The jury in Twelve Angry Men struggles to achieve a unanimous ruling for various reasons. The author demonstrates how difficult it is to get a decision when jurors have preconceived beliefs and bring personal prejudice to a case, as well as Jurors who lack interest. These concerns, without a doubt, produce disputes and difficulties in the Jury system, highlighting a potential flaw in the democratic process. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that Juror 8 is one of the few Jurors who first deliberate honestly and seriously and wants justice. Rose argues that active participation is required to ensure that the jury system works as intended and that the final verdict is simpler to attain when this occurs. Rose believes it is difficult for the jury to reach a decision when the Jurors have predetermined notions and exhibit bigotry.

The author illustrates the problem with people having personal prejudices in a case since it can blind them to the facts. This, in turn, makes it difficult for the Jurors to reach a consensus since it impairs their capacity to reason and understand things from anothers perspective. This point is emphasized by the venomous Juror 10, who represents bigotry and prejudice. Juror 10 exemplifies racisms potential strength, believing that the kids who crawl outta those places are real trash(Rose 30). Finally, this preconceived notion makes it impossible to form a realistic view of the subject since it closes the door to his capacity to consider it from a different perspective. Furthermore, he finds it challenging to achieve an agreement since he is unwilling to separate the facts from the fancy (Rose 11). As a result of his reluctance to recognize reasonable doubt in the case, jury 10s animosity might be seen as causing difficulty in concluding.

Furthermore, the dispute created by numerous jurors predispositions adds to the difficulties in obtaining a final decision. This is because it fosters an environment of resentment and suspicion among the jurors. For instance, jurors 3 and 8 disagree when jury 8 refers to juror 3 as a sadist, and a self-appointed public avenger who wants the boy to die because [he] personally want it, not because of the facts (Rose 73). This causes resentment between the two jurors, which is not resolved until jury 3 sees his bias and votes not guilty. Nevertheless, his hostility toward jury 8 makes convincing him of the reasonable doubt in the case exceedingly difficult (Rose 73). Juror 3s rage eventually diminishes, and he recognizes his prejudice when it is brought to his attention. This procedure is quite complex, which adds to the difficulty of obtaining a final decision.

Rose emphasizes the difficulties in reaching a final judgment by highlighting those who bring personal predisposition to a case. The author emphasizes the impact of personal prejudice on ones capacity to consider somewhat via jury 3. Juror 3s emotional baggage prevents him from effectively participating in the democratic process and determining the defendants guilt or innocence (Rose 72). Rose claims it is easier to agree with rigorous thinking since bias inhibits individuals from carrying out their civic responsibility. Juror 3s prejudices and experiences are underscored by his notion that the defendant has got to burn (Rose 72). This implies that it is difficult to understand things from a different perspective if an individual is preoccupied with personal difficulties.

Juror 3s unwillingness to listen to the other jurors viewpoints and only agree with those who see it from his point of view highlights his difficulty in reaching a final judgment. This is emphasized by his repeated agreement with people who condemn the youngster, as he remarks, listen to this man. He knows what hes talking about, and hes absolutely right (Rose 35). His personal bias prohibits him from considering the other Jurors perspectives, and he can only agree with those who condemn the defendant. Rose expresses how difficult it is to obtain a final judgment when prejudiced jurors are closed-minded and unwilling to entertain different viewpoints.

Rose emphasizes how difficult it might be to get a final judgment when people demonstrate a lack of interest in the issue and are unwilling to think for themselves. The author argues that individuals unwilling to take the matter seriously endanger the system and make reaching a final conclusion difficult (Rose 72). Juror 7 is uninterested in the jury process because he is more preoccupied with his well-being than honestly debating and discussing the issue (Rose 75). He symbolizes individuals who prioritize self-interest over public responsibility, making it difficult for him to contribute to the ultimate judgment conclusion.

While reaching a final judgment is challenging, Rose says that the jury system necessitates involvement for a verdict to be reached. Juror 8 is one of the few jurors willing to go against the majority and safeguard the democratic process (Rose 12). It is difficult to conclude since Juror 8 is the only one who first perceives this as grave responsibility because the death sentence is mandatory (Rose 12). He expresses concern for the matter by inciting debate and seeking justice. However, the fact that many other jurors need help understanding the procedure shows that reaching an agreement will be easier with active participation.

Active engagement is what permits the process to grow and makes it simpler to reach a decision. This is seen in the willingness of quiet Jurors such as Juror 2 to engage and contribute to the case, making it simpler to reach a final judgment. This is shown when he interrogates witnesses about the business about the stab wound and how it was made (Rose 92). His capacity to participate in debate implies that involvement is required in reaching a final decision. Furthermore, Juror 9s involvement catches up on the elderly ladys eyesight, which is the ultimate result. As a result, Rose emphasizes that participation from the jury system is essential for a final decision to be obtained. Furthermore, with participation, reaching an agreement is easier.

In the United States in 1957, juries were designed to reflect a cross-section of society, consisting solely of white men of all ages, values, and opinions. This collision of perspectives, particularly in Twelve Angry Men, automatically leads to disagreement, making it exceedingly difficult for the jury to reach a unanimous conclusion. Juror 11, for example, an immigrant from Germany, evidently valued the democratic system enormously due to his experiences in other undemocratic nations (Rose 14). Other jurors, on the other hand, such as juror 3, have grown to take the democratic system and the opportunity to serve on a jury for granted. Jury 3s remark shows this when asked about the trial, that [he] was falling asleep (Rose 14). Juror 3 has had many past experiences with this social responsibility, which has contributed to his lethargy. The audience might interpret this duality as evidence of the jurys diversity of ideas. As a result, the process of reaching a decision becomes necessarily lengthy.

In conclusion, the author, Rose, emphasizes how difficult it is to get a unanimous decision when jurors have preconceived notions, prejudice, and bigotry and are uninterested in the issue. With detailed and specific examples, the author provides a clear depiction of how jurors 10, 3,9, and 7 prejudice and personal opinions affect the final verdict. He does, however, propose that when Jurors contribute and actively engage, a consensus is eventually obtained.

Work Cited

Rose, Reginald. Twelve Angry Men. 1954.

Introduction

The movie offers a dramatic scene in a court setting providing the audiences with legal thrills concerning an endless quantity of fictional and realistic evidence concerning a murder case (Abramson 1). However, few scenes concentrate on the events outside the courtroom presenting the themes of transparency and accountability within the police department. This brings the concepts of the good and the bad cops within the police units. These perfectly rhyme with the intelligent investigators, and forensic groups who get involved with similar experiences. The lawyers present high ambitions as substantiated by the proceedings of the court, as well as, events outside the courtroom. In addition, the jurors show expressionless faces given their roles concerning the presented cases. They have become diminished into intermittent and mandatory response groups by the court systems (Abramson 1).

Summary of the movie

Twelve Angry Men pursues the judgment procedure that the jury undertakes in solving a murder case while still following ongoing adjustments of eleven jury members (Rose 2). The setting is a courtroom on a hot afternoon summer day. The scene starts with the raising of the courtroom curtains after which the judge proclaims that the dependant gets charged with first-degree slaughter. The judge continues to state that such an offense leads to the compulsory death penalty. Additionally, the judge addresses the jury concerning the case by offering them the mandate to exonerate the dependant in case of a logical query (Del 30).

The jurors are entire of the male gender and sit around a big conference table. In this setting, no air conditioning is presenting hot conditions that contrast with the ensuing court environment (Rose 3). It seems like the jury has already made up thoughts concerning the judgment of the dependant. It can be substantiated by the scorns that the dependant obtains from some constituents of the jury. The story presented is that the young adult purchases a knife although it soon gets lost the night his father gets stabbed. However, from the look of things, the young man seems guilty since the story about the loss of the knife seems unambiguous. Other jurors condemn the young man although one juror understands that one is never guilty until proven so.

The juror feels obliged to ensure that justice transpires in the presented case. He feels that sentencing the young man without substantial evidence would be a failure of the court and the whole justice system. Soon after, the jury discusses the presented case by laying down the facts (Rose 3). Therefore, a review of what the jurors know is undertaken. According to the witnesses, the old man existed, below the area in which the murder took place. By the presented witness, he heard the son warn his father that he would exterminate him. The witness further explains the events concerning that dreadful night. He said he heard someone fall and later on saw the son freeing the scene.

According to juror four, the story appears to be insubstantial or rather unconvincing. In defense, the son claims to have attended a movie even though there are no witnesses to substantiate this claim. Following witnesses, a woman alleges to have observed everything through her window of a high train. In the court session, the presented claims were considered substantial evidence. In addition, more information was obtained on the frequent beatings that the father inflicted on his son. The son had recently been detained in connection to other unlawful acts such as mugging. The son had also been in a reform institution after he stabbed someone with a knife.

According to juror eight, numerous questions were that presented queries were unasked and thus unreciprocated presenting a dilemma in the whole case (Rose 4). The juror requests for the murder weapon and presents resentments towards the jurors who assume that the boy stabbed his father. Therefore, he presents another perception that another person holding a similar knife stabbed the father. Controversially, the juror presents a knife similar to the murder weapon insisting that the young man tells the truth.

Personal opinion

In my opinion, the young man may be either innocent or guilty since the presented evidence and witnesses provide little substantiation towards the judgment. The court and the jury need to acquire adequate and solid evidence to convict a person. The jury seems to have already made their verdict even with the inadequate evidence and witnesses presented in the case. The court system is required to prove someone to be guilty or not and not to mock or criticize the dependants.

Convicting a dependant without an illustration of guiltiness is often reflected on as an infringement of the privilege of the dependant. Presenting someone as a suspect of committing any unlawful acts, never guarantees that they are the persons who committed the acts. Therefore, suspects ought to be treated as innocent individuals until the court through adequate evidence manages to bring out the truth behind such acts. However, in this case, the jurors treat the suspect as the guilty party regardless of whether adequate evidence has been presented.

A jury system made up of unqualified individuals in the field of law, cannot offer sound reasons, concerning certain mysterious happenings. The jury system ought to be composed of people who can think constructively in line with the presented cases. Juror 12 who presents adequate reasoning, which can be utilized, in solving the puzzle presented in the case, can substantiate this. The jury in the movie is not fit to carry out executions given their inadequate knowledge of the implications of awarding suspects undeserved sentences. In the case of the young man, offering a verdict on the death penalty cannot be reversed meaning that no mistakes ought to be made in making such judgments (Del 434).

Recommended changes

In my opinion, the recommendation that needs to be implemented is the involvement of a jury system that is not biased, open-minded, and that offers good substantiation before making ambiguous decisions. The jury system ought to be made up of people with adequate knowledge of the law with relevant or related professionalism.

Reasons for the changes

The jury system requires open-minded individuals who can relate things, and manage to solve complex cases presented by the court. The system necessitates individuals knowledgeable in law to apply the principles learned in the resolution of complex cases. The system has to have unbiased individuals to prevent obstruction of justice. These individuals need to have critical thinking in the decisions they make since these decisions, however, small they may seem affect a great deal of the dependant especially if they are innocent.

Conclusion

Decision-making in criminal law plays a chief role and its execution in pursuit of justice ought to be carried out following the criminal procedures. The court system necessitates carrying out a thorough investigation and substantiation before offering a person any judgment. In doing so, justice can be awarded most efficiently thus; preventing innocent people from suffering for the actions of another individual.

Works Cited

Abramson, Jeffrey. Anger at Angry Jurors. 2007. Web.

Del, Carmen R. V. Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2006. Print.

Rose, Reginald. Twelve Angry Men. 2010. Web.

African-American Politician Martin Luther King Jr. once said: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” This is a quote he used in his famous speech “I have a dream” on August 28th, 1963 in Washington.

Even though this speech was delivered 57 years ago, Prejudice still is a big problem in modern society. These Problems have been around for a long time

There are many different kinds of Prejudice like racial, age, gender, or religious prejudice but today I will talk about racial and socioeconomic prejudice, which doesn’t only play a big role in modern society but also in the plan “12 Angry men” by Reginald Rose.

What are ’12 Angry Men” about?

The play ’12 Angry Men”, is about a jury’s consultations in a capital murder case. A 12-man jury is sent to discuss the murder trial of a 16-year-old Puerto Rican teenager who is being blamed for the death of his father. If all 12 men agree that the boy is guilty he will be sentenced to death.

What does Prejudice mean?

But first of all, let me simply clarify what Prejudice really implies.

Prejudice is a biased feeling that did not depend on the reason or genuine encounter. When an individual concludes that they dislike somebody dependent on their skin color, religion, nationality, or different reasons that the individual has no influence over, they are one-sided and have partiality towards that individual.

Argument 1:

In the play “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose there are a few very racist Jurors especially Juror 3 said a few things that highlight his racist way of thinking. Right at the beginning of the play on page 9, he says: “I mean let’s be reasonable. You sat in court and heard the same things we did: The man’s a dangerous killer. You could see it.” The problem here is that Juror 3 is not being reasonable. The accused is a black teenager, who lives in a poor neighborhood so Juror 3 could be referring to the way the accused looks when he said “You could see it.” However, no one can see if a person killed someone or did something good or bad by looking at them.

Especially in a judicial system, there shouldn’t be any prejudice as it affects the judge’s and the juror’s decision and could even send someone to jail without being guilty. However, the decisions people make are often based on prejudice even if they don’t want to admit it, bias affects the way people think, and a lot of the time people don’t even notice that they are judging people based on prejudice. I’m sure most of you remember when we talked about the Zimmermann Case a few weeks ago, this case was very public and a lot of people knew about it, but things like that happen a lot even today. For instance: In 2005, John McNeil got a call from his child announcing that 19-year-old Brian Epp was on their property in the backyard of the family’s home, threatening the child with a case box cutter. McNeil, an individual of color, got back, called the police, and told Brian Epp, a white man, to leave. At that point fired a warning shot into the ground, yet Epp kept on moving toward him. McNeil then shot Epp, killing him. Witnesses confirmed McNeil’s record of occasions, and police at first controlled he acted in self-protection. Be that as it may, after 9 months, the Cobb County District Attorney’s Office brought murder allegations against him and won a conviction condemning the man to live in jail.

In February 2013, in the wake of going through six years in jail, a judge decided that John McNeill ought to be released because of the various mistakes at trial and the jury not being appropriately taught about an individual’s entitlement to utilize power to protect himself, his home or someone else from an assault.

There was a CCTV tape that demonstrated that McNeill acted in self-defense and had no aim of killing Brian Epp however he despite everything got charged and got sent to jail.

As indicated by the NAACP, the McNeils were the main dark inhabitants living in an all-upscale predominantly white Atlanta neighborhood.

The Judge that sent McNeill to jail expressed that his choice had nothing to do with race or racial partiality yet individuals questioned his statement. This case isn’t the only one where prejudice plays a big role in the case of 19-Year-old Chase Legleitner and 21-year-old Lamar Lloyd. Both of these men are approximately the same age and they both committed the same crime. Lloyd is African American while Legleitner is caucasian. As I just said both of these men committed the same crime however Legleitner only had to serve 2 years in county jail while Lloyd has to serve 26 years in prison. It was the same crime, the same courtroom, the same day, and even the same judge but very different results. Now if this doesn’t show you how severe white privilege is I don’t know what does.

Argument 2:

Another type of prejudice that is highlighted in the play is socioeconomic prejudice. In the play there isn’t one particular Juror that represents socioeconomic prejudice, there are a few that think that the accused is guilty because of the neighborhood that he lives in. When Juror 4 said: “He was born in a slum. Slums are breeding grounds for criminals.” When he says that the is biased. He is not stating facts but just what he thinks may be true. Only because a person lives in a slum doesn’t mean that he’s a criminal. Just like Juror 4, Juror 10 blames the crime and the boy because he’s poor: “Listen, I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say. I mean, they’re born liars.”

The problem is that people can often not control how wealthy they are.

Conclusion:

The play “12 Angry Men”, by Reginald Rose shows us how severe Prejudice was and still is and how it is hard to keep bias out of the judicial system or just daily life. We can see that even though we’re not in the 60s Prejudice of any kind is still a big problem in society. When we research and learn more about how present prejudice still is today we can see that it’s still a big problem.

When Martin Luther King Jr. said that he wants his four kids to live in a nation where they won’t be judged by their skin color but by the content of their character, we can see that there still is a long way to go for the world to achieve equality between everyone. It shouldn’t matter what color your skin is, what gender you are, or where you come from but what’s on the inside is what should matter.

The 12 angry men are a group of jurors that have come together for longer than a few minutes and interact with and influence one another, and perceive one another as “us” and are interdependent with each other. They work towards a common goal of coming to a unanimous consensus about whether the accused at hand is guilty or not.

A sense of “we” feeling is ignited in the group once they realize that the fate of an eighteen year old boy who is accused of stabbing his own father to death is in their hands. Their common interest is to have all 12 of them to be on the same page and present the judge a collective decision. This they have to achieve despite of their individual differences as demanded by their profession. The entire group takes up the task together as a unit and do end up with a unanimous decision as seen in the latter part of the movie. They all may have different backgrounds but are bound together by their profession and task at hand. They are highly depended on one another. To this particular group, the law and ensuring that justice is served is their utmost priority. As evident, the group had major control over its members and everyone of them were obliged to both listen and actively participate in the discussion in a democratic manner. They expected the group to stand up for them or at least listen to what they had to say no matter how trivial.

This group of jurors was a formally appointed one. They were bound by rules and regulations. They had a complex structure. Even though it may seem like just a bunch of 12 members but in reality they were a significant part of a bigger, more complex structure. Their decision mattered most to the judiciary system. Like any other formal group, it had speicifc time bound objectives to fulfill. Being a task oriented group, it can be categorized as a secondary group. As seen in the movie, there were a few jurors who didn’t even want to be a part of it in the first place. Their effectiveness was high when their were no personal needs to be met. However, as seen in the case of juror no. 3, his personal needs kept him from seeing the possibility of reasonable doubt until the very end. Such a vital group was limited to certain people alone. It is an exclusive group, to be a member of which, one had to meet basic qualifications. It was not open to all, it was limited to an inner circle.

Throughout the movie we see how the group completes the five stages of formation.

Starting with forming, initially, there were some members who even questioned the need of such a group because according to them, the outcome was already crystal clear. There was a lot of uncertainty and confusion. The members didn’t know what to expect out of the other.

As they reached the second stage, storming, we found a plethora of opinions. It was sparked when they found out that one person out of the twelve had an opposite view point. The members disagreed on many points which led to conflicts. It was Juror No.8 (Henry Fonda) who voiced out his concerns in the first place. It took him time, but eventually he, along with the help of a few others, managed to convince all 12 of them to see things from a different light and changed the entire verdict. It was only after hours of brainstorming and discussions that they arrived at a common consensus and established their clear goal.

In this group, the third stage, norming, was reached almost in parallel with stage two. The members started to accept that there are differences in opinions and that they will have to work through it. In an unsaid manner, roles and responsibilities were appointed. For instance, Juror No.1 became the foreman and it almost became Juror No.8’s responsibility to convince the rest as to why the child was not guilty. They even established a pattern to get the work done. After sessions of discussion, they would conduct a vote to see where everyone stands, they even used various methods to do the same.

Stage 4 was seen throughout the movie. In order to achieve their goals the carried out rounds and rounds of discussions where they spoke about a range of things like the murder weapon, the el trains, the verdicts offered etc. They were expected to be rational and unbiased, however there were some exceptions.

In the end, when everyone was convinced about the possibility of reasonable doubt, stage 5, adjourning, was seen. They came up with a unanimous conclusion that the boy was not guilty, their purpose as the jury had reached.

The formation of this group can be best explained using the Classic theory of group formation. As the theory suggests, the entire foundation of the group was built up by multiple interactions. Their shared activities of discussions, role play and voting played a major role in the formation of this group. They developed similar attitudes inspite of having completely opposite ones initially. Their shared activities developed similar sentiments and attitudes which made them stronger.

The group was subjected to various types of collective influences, for example social facilitation. Social facilitation is the tendency to perform better at tasks we are already good at in the presence of others around as it increases arousal. Juror No.8 ( Henry Fonda) was an architect by profession. He was a confident and passionate man. In the presence of eleven other who held views opposing his own, he continued to be confident and passionate. In fact, he held them so strongly that he was able to convince 11 angry men. In his everyday life, as an architect, creativity had to be one of his main strengths. In the presence of others, he played to his strengths and helped create a mini role play to determine the credibility of the old man’s verdict.

On the downside, there may be instances where crowding can affect social facilitation. In relevance to this, the seating arrangement also plays a major role. For instance Juror No.2 found himself succumbing to stress when we felt the eyes of 11 angry jurors at him seated across and beside him on either sides.

Such arousal in the presence of others can be caused by three factors and it is very evident in the movie

Evaluation apprehension – concern for how others are evaluating us

Distraction – sometimes, the presence of co-actors may also be a distraction, in the movie, the presence of the members with different levels of patience and tolerance is a definite source of distraction, along with the changing weather.

Mere presence – presence of other people increases arousal which may lead to increase or decrease in performance

Social loafing is another type of collective influence that the group was subjected to. It is the tendency for people to exert less effort when they pool their efforts towards a common goal than when they are individually accountable. The 12 men in the movie together had to achieve a common goal. However, all 12 of them didn’t initially contribute to their fullest capacities. Only few of them realized what a grave responsibility they had on their shoulder while some felt they had more important things to do then to sit in the jury. Juror No.7 found attending a game more important. There were even instances when some members were found playing tic-tac-toe while a serious discussion was going on the other side of the table. This led to the emergence of free riders who put in lesser effort and still wanted to be benefited with the same rewards.

The entire jury consisted of only men, which also explains why social loafing was seen on such a large scale. Social loafing was reduced when each individual was given more accountability and were asked to explain their stance in front of the entire group.

Deindividuation is another type of collective influence according to which when there is arousal and a diffuse of responsibility, and both of it combines, the normal diminutions go diminished. Loss of self awareness and evaluation apprehension occurs in group situations that foster responsiveness to group norms, be it good or bad. This is influenced by physical anonymity. When one is anonymous, his/her inhibitions are reduced. In the movie, we saw how when the vote was taken via a secret ballot, Juror No.9 was able to actually express his personal opinion which was that the boy was not guilty. The anonymity ensured by the secret ballot allowed him to release his inhibitions as opposed to when the voting was not secretive. Group size also influences deindividuation. Larger the group, self awareness is less and hence we tend engage in more in that behavior.

There are also various social influences on any interacting group, namely: Group polarization, group think and minority influence.

Group polarization is group produced enhancement of a member’s preexisting tendencies. One’s opinion is strengthened when the group also holds the same or similar opinion. This can be explained using the example of Juror No. 3 and 4.

Initially there wasn’t a problem for them as there were 9 other who held the same opinion as them. Such a large number even helped strengthen their opinions. Towards the end, when they were the only two people who still believed that the boy was guilty, when Juror No.4 put forth two well substantiated points, Juror No. 3’s belief strengthened and he became more reassured of his stance. Such behavior can be explained using normative influence and informative influence. Normative influence stems from the desire to avoid rejection and to gain approval. Informative influence stems from the desire to acquire more information to strengthen your own opinion.

Since this group is not a cohesive in-group, tendency of group think to occur is very less as evident from the movie.

Minority influence is a type of social influence that is most prominent one in this movie. It is true that the influence a minority has over a group, if its confident and validated, is much more than that of a majority. In this movie, we see how Juror No.8 single handedly sparks the engine towards convincing a group of 11 men into believing something they initially thought could never happen. With his confidence, creativity and patience, slowly, he was able to make the other members let go of their inhibitions and make a new fair decision.

Another type of Minority Influence is Leadership. Leadership is the process through which certain group members motivate and guide the group. There are two types of leaderships : Task leadership and Social leadership, both can be seen in this movie.

Task leadership, as the name suggests, is oriented towards a particular task. They give instructions, set roles and get work done. It is the form that organizes work, sets standards and focuses on goal. Juror No.1 took up the role of a task leader. He was directive and guided the group throughout.

Social leaders build team work, mediate conflicts and offers supports. Social leadership is more democratic and adjustable. It aims at finding a consensus and is much more useful for decision making. Such leadership is portrayed by Juror No.8. He ensures that a unanimous decision is made in a smooth and orderly manner. He allows everyone to get a chance and also ensures that all the members are active and participating.

Thus the 12 angry men are a perfect example of how a group works and its dynamics.

Prejudice is a biased feeling that did not depend on the reason or genuine encounter. At the point when an individual concludes that they dislike somebody dependent on their skin color, religion, nationality, or different reasons that the individual has no influence over, they are one-sided and have partiality towards that individual.

In the play “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose there are a few very racist Jurors especially Juror 3 said a few things that highlight his racist way of thinking. Right at the beginning of the play on page 9, he says: “I mean let’s be reasonable. You sat in court and heard the same things we did: The man’s a dangerous killer. You could see it.” The problem here is that Juror 3 is not being reasonable. The accused is a black teenager, who lives in a poor neighborhood so Juror 3 could be referring to the way the accused looks when he said “You could see it.” However, no one can see if a person killed someone or did something good or bad by looking at them.

Another type of prejudice that is highlighted in the play is socioeconomic prejudice. In the play there isn’t one particular Juror that represents socioeconomic prejudice, there are a few that think that the accused is guilty because of the neighborhood in which he lives. When Juror 4 said: “He was born in a slum. Slums are breeding grounds for criminals.” When he says that the is biased. He is not stating facts but just what he thinks may be true. Only because a person lives in a slum doesn’t mean that he’s a criminal. Just like Juror 4, Juror 10 blames the crime and the boy because he’s poor: “Listen, I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say. I mean, they’re born liars.”

The problem is that people can often not control how wealthy they are.

Juror 4 (E.G. Marshall) He is a very wealthy person who makes sure that he sticks to his facts. He is a rational person.

Based on the big five models the following can be attributed to juror 4.

Juror #4

• Wealthy
• presents himself well all the time
• serious
• only wants facts
• high conscientiousness and neuroticism.

The film indicated an incredible case of gathering things toward the finish of the motion picture. The meaning of mindless conformity takes a stab at consistency inside a gathering, even at the expense of one’s convictions and feelings. Clearly, if that one member of the jury would have not defended what he accepted the film and the decision would have had a totally diverse result. In any case, he held his ground, and in light of that, they were all ready to wake up. The most intriguing thing about this film to me was viewing the entire procedure go down, tuning in to thought, and having the option to get everybody’s thoughts were fascinating supposing that it wasn’t for the one man, everything and everybody’s sentiments would be totally extraordinary like they were to start with.

Introduction

Regarded as a classic film that explores the dynamics of a jury deliberation, “12 Angry Men” offers a gripping portrayal of the American judicial system. However, upon closer examination, it becomes evident that the film is not without its flaws. In this critical essay, we will delve into the fallacies present in ’12 Angry Men’ and discuss how they impact the integrity of the deliberation process, the accuracy of the verdict, and the overall portrayal of justice.

Ad Hominem Fallacy

One of the most prominent fallacies in ’12 Angry Men’ is the presence of ad hominem attacks. Throughout the film, jurors engage in personal attacks on one another rather than focusing on the evidence and facts presented. These attacks undermine the integrity of the deliberation process by diverting attention away from the case itself and instead focusing on personal biases and prejudices. By attacking each other’s character, the jurors fail to engage in a rational discussion based on the merits of the case, ultimately compromising the pursuit of justice.

Confirmation Bias

Another fallacy that pervades the film is confirmation bias. Several jurors enter the deliberation room with preconceived notions and biases that influence their interpretation of the evidence. They selectively choose evidence that supports their predetermined beliefs while dismissing or ignoring conflicting evidence. This biased approach skews the deliberation process and compromises the search for truth and justice. In a real-world scenario, confirmation bias can lead to wrongful convictions, as jurors may overlook critical evidence that contradicts their initial assumptions.

Straw Man Fallacy

The presence of the straw man fallacy in ’12 Angry Men’ is also worth noting. Jurors often misrepresent or oversimplify opposing arguments to make them easier to refute. They create exaggerated versions of the opposing viewpoints, making it easier to dismiss them. By mischaracterizing the arguments of others, the jurors avoid engaging in a substantive discussion and instead construct an artificial version of the opposition’s position. This fallacy undermines the intellectual rigor of the deliberation process and hinders the exploration of different perspectives.

Bandwagon Fallacy

In the film, the bandwagon fallacy emerges when jurors succumb to group pressure and conform to the majority opinion without critically analyzing the evidence. As the deliberation progresses, the dominant personalities within the group exert significant influence, leading some jurors to abandon their independent thinking and follow the majority. This fallacy disregards the importance of individual perspectives and stifles dissenting voices, potentially leading to an unjust verdict.

Appeal to Emotion

’12 Angry Men’ also exhibits the fallacy of appealing to emotions. Jurors often rely on emotional arguments and personal anecdotes rather than objective evidence to support their positions. While emotions can play a role in decision-making, a reliance solely on emotional appeals can cloud judgment and detract from the objective evaluation of evidence. By allowing emotions to dictate the deliberation, the jurors risk compromising the fairness and impartiality required in a courtroom setting.

Conclusion

While ’12 Angry Men’ is widely acclaimed for its exploration of the jury system, it is essential to acknowledge the presence of fallacies within the film’s portrayal of the deliberation process. The ad hominem attacks, confirmation bias, straw man fallacy, bandwagon fallacy, and appeal to emotion all contribute to a flawed representation of the pursuit of justice. By critically analyzing these fallacies, we gain insight into the limitations and potential pitfalls of real-world jury deliberations. It is crucial to recognize and address these fallacies to ensure that justice is served impartially, based on sound reasoning and a thorough examination of the evidence.

Justice is not a simple issue of right or wrong. When you look at it more closely, it is far more complicated. Justice is defined as “the quality of being just or fair, the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishment.” This may generalize the meaning of justice but when it is further looked at it arises different concepts, as to why it is so complex.

There are many aspects of justice that we may question; i.e. Do people have different moral reasoning? Are people given a fair trial? Is prejudice present in justice?

Much of the issue of justice is very controversial and raises questions such as whether the combination of different outlooks makes a just result.

In the texts To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee and 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, these concepts or questions are supported and explored in depth supporting the conclusion that justice is complex.

The nature of justice is complex when further investigated. It allows for discussion around different concepts supporting this statement including the involvement of prejudice. Prejudice is an unjustified attitude or opinion, usually, a negative one, directed toward an individual for something the individual cannot control.

A text that supports this concept of prejudice is the novel To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee. In the novel, Tom Robinson’s trial deals with the fact that it is the majority’s word over the minorities which in this case is the whites’ word over the blacks. Atticus maintains justice in this case, by looking at the evidence rationally as opposed to just assuming he was guilty because of his race. By doing this he found holes in the evidence which he then pointed out to the rest of the jury, whilst also urging them to be fair to Tom in reaching a verdict based solely on the fact of the trial and how equal treatment of every citizen is required in a court of law.

A technique used to portray this scene in the novel is foreshadowing. Foreshadowing is a literary device in which a writer gives an advance hint of what is to come later in the story. An example of this is when the people of Maycomb are shown to harbor feelings of racism toward African-Americans. This is demonstrated by their living in separate areas away from the white community, they also are required to attend a different church and the children do not get to attend a white school.

This technique is used to highlight prejudice in the Tom Robinson case as well as to show the complexity of justice. This technique affects Tom’s well reason defense against being accused of raping a white girl, Mayella Ewell. Unfortunately, it is unsuccessful due to the injustice and prejudice of black people in Maycomb when facing whites. The foreshadowing of Maycomb reveals the corrupt society and ignorance towards people who are different.

Another example of a technique is an allusion.

An allusion is a figure of speech that makes a brief reference to a historical or literary figure, event, or object. An allusion is always indirect.

Miss Gates states, “Adolf Hitler has been after the Jews and he’s puttin’ em in prisons and he’s taking away all their property and he won’t let any of ‘em out of the country and he’s washin’ all the feeble-minded“ (Pg. 327-328). This allusion is to Adolf Hitler and the persecution of the Jews. It shows how innocent people around the world are being convicted for no reason. To some extent, this allusion is ironic because the students and Miss Gates acknowledge racial prejudice outside their hometown but not in their own town. This technique helps to enhance the theme of racial prejudice and shows you how ignorant and oblivious people are to it. When this occurs it makes justice complex in the way that no one realizes that anything wrong is happening, therefore they believe that the outcome is just. This then provides support for the idea that justice is not a simple issue of right and wrong. When you look at it more closely, it is far more complex.

Another related text that suggests justice is complex through the concept of prejudice is the play 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose. 12 Angry Men clarifies the tendency to allow prejudice to influence decision-making. In this story, twelve jurors serving in a murder trial show how their own prejudices reflect their decisions as they attempt to base their votes on their racist feelings toward the defendant. For example, Juror 3 says, “That man’s a dangerous killer. You could see it.” Here, he is assuming that a killer must ‘look’ a certain way, indicating his prejudice against those who look like the defendant. He follows that comment with the statement: “They sent him to reform school for stabbing someone.” This idea assumes that because the kid might have stabbed someone in the past, he is certainly guilty in this case. The remaining jurors expected one, all voted guilty before discussing the evidence. Juror 8 started out as the only man on the jury that had any second thoughts about the boy’s guilt. He, much like Atticus, looked at the evidence rationally and found gaps in that evidence which he pointed out to the rest of the jury. This was a result of juror No.8 holding no prejudiced thoughts compared to the remaining eleven.

Juxtaposition is used in this text to help support the idea of how prejudiced thoughts affect an overall situation. Juxtaposition in literary terms is the showing contrast by concepts placed side by side

The technique of juxtaposing juror 3 to juror 8 affects the final outcome of the verdict as juror 8 fought without prejudice as compared to juror 3.

12 Angry Men supports the idea of how someone’s prejudiced thoughts get in the way and affect upholding justice which therefore reveals the complex nature of justice.

The nature of justice is complex when further looked into. It brings up different concepts supporting this statement including the involvement of prejudice. This is further supported by the texts To Kill A Mockingbird and 12 Angry Men, as they display acts of prejudice and how they distort justice.

Fairness in justice is defined as an ability to ensure that all individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, fairness is not always constant in justice as everyone is not given a fair trial. This adds to the reasons why justice is so complex.

Atticus knows it’s the right thing to do to defend Tom Robinson despite of his color. In addition to giving helpful advice, Atticus reminds the jury for the last time to give this man a chance. In chapter 20, Atticus knows that the jury will make a biased decision. In his last plea to the jury, Atticus says ”… I am confident that you gentleman will review without passion the evidence you have heard, come to a decision and restore this defendant to his family…. In the name of God, believe him.” Atticus acts justly to Tom Robinson by doing his best to give him a fair trial. However, Tom Robinson did not receive a fair trial due to the racism he obtained from the people of the jury. This later led to him being wrongly convicted of a crime he did not commit and being sentenced to the death penalty. Despite Atticus’s strong case, Tom became a victim of racial injustice and therefore did not receive a fair trial.

A language technique used in the scene of the novel is pathos. Pathos is a technique that evokes feelings of pity or sorrow in the reader. It is used in this scene by making the reader feel sorry or sad for Tom as he had done nothing wrong but despite that, he was still punished. It demonstrates that though people may be given a fair trial a fair result is not always obtained.

However, the opposite result was attained in 12 angry men. In the play, fairness was a major theme. An example of fairness is how Juror 8 fought for the equality of the suspect. All of the other jurors were going to convict the defendant without a fair trial, instead, they convicted him to what they thought was just or right by them. Juror 8 ignored the background of the defendant and encouraged discussion before the conviction. This showed fairness by him putting effort in to treat the defendant the same, regardless of race and the other juror’s opinions of him.

By providing these two examples it is easy to see that justice is complex. Recognizing that all cases vary, with different jurors and prejudices, we get a greater understanding that justice is not what it seems and when further looked into it reveals just how complex it can be.

Moral reasoning is a process of trying to determine the difference between right and wrong. The way someone was raised or the experiences they have faced could be what molds certain beliefs. Morals differ from person to person resulting in people having different views and understandings in the way they perceive right and wrong. This makes it difficult to reach a just result, adding to the statement that justice is complex.

To Kill A Mockingbird shows the concept of moral reasoning which differs between a person and a situation. For example, Jem tells Scout that “We shouldn’t do that tonight…” (page 74-75), referring to their earlier incident in the Radleys’ yard. Jem feels guilty about tormenting Boo Radley because of higher moral reasoning. He is beginning to develop a sense of morals and realizes that harming Boo is wrong, whilst Dill doesn’t consider anything to be wrong with the incident.

Another example of a difference in moral reasoning is in chapter 26. Scout uses a simile to describe the way that Tom Robinsons’s verdict and tragic death have affected them, by saying

”The events of the summer hung over us like smoke in a closed room.”

Similes use ‘like’ or ‘as’ to make descriptive comparisons. Scout describes the heavy feelings as being like trapped smoke. Scout understands that her verdict of Tom was wrong as compared to the rest of Maycomb, as she has a higher moral reasoning. This is due to Atticus teaching her the difference between right and wrong, through life experiences. This has given her a different understanding than the rest of the town resulting in her final thought.

This shows that different understandings and moral reasoning affect how one perceives a situation. In justice many people are involved, each with their own moral reasoning making it hard to maintain justice without any complexities.

Like To Kill A Mockingbird, the play 12 Angry Men is another perfect example of how moral reasoning can distort justice. To further understand moral reasoning I will provide an example of Lawrence Kohlberg’s stage theory of moral development and how different jurors symbolize each stage. This will provide evidence of how people have different thought processes for reaching different conclusions, again supporting the statement that justice is complex.

Kohlberg’s theory consists of six stages, which focus on the thinking process that occurs when one decides whether a behavior is right or wrong.

Stage 1: Obedience/Punishment

In stage one, moral judgement is less based on reasoning and more on fear of punishment; the individual will obey in order to avoid punishment. Juror 12 is the most uncertain of all jurors, changing his vote three times with barely any opinion on his own. He is most concerned about being on the ‘right’ side of the argument according to the jury room and less on the right side of the trial.

Stage 2: Self-interest

This is the stage of independence. A person’s moral judgment revolves around themselves and they act according to what is best for them. All throughout the play, Juror 7 is more concerned with his tickets to a Yankees game than he is with the trial. His moral reasoning is based on his personal need to come to a quick decision. Even when he finally changes his vote, it is because he sees the jury room shifting and makes the decision that allows him to get to his game faster.

Stage 3: Conformity

At this stage, a person’s moral reasoning is determined by social approval. The individual wants to maintain or win the affection and approval of others by being a “good person.” Juror 11 is an immigrant, he makes a point of being polite and it’s clear that it’s important to him to be accepted. He changes his vote early in the play, agreeing to the reasonable doubt. He wants to be seen as a ’good person’ so he follows the mindset or role of Juror 8.

Stage 4: Authority and Order

Moral decision-making becomes more than consideration of being accepted by others. The individual believes that rules and laws maintain the social order that is worth preserving. Juror 4 is one of the last to change his vote stating that an eyewitness is proof that remains despite all the doubt. After all, there can be no doubt a person has died, and Juror 4 is reluctant to let the issue go easily.

Stage 5: Social Contract

At this stage, a person starts to question both the morality of others and the nature of rules. It becomes more important to make exceptions rather than follow a set of rules that may not be in everyone’s favor. Juror 8 wants to discuss the evidence of the trial. Throughout the play, he shows that he understands the details of the case and also the arguments of the other jurors. He doesn’t care about the verdict only that it is just.

Stage 6: Universal Principles

The last stage is the point where a person develops their own moral principles and follows them regardless of the law. This type of reasoning involves taking the perspective of every person or group that could potentially be affected by the decision. The play doesn’t demonstrate a good example of this, mostly because the situation doesn’t call for it. Kohlberg believes that few people ever reach this stage.

Moral reasoning can’t be avoided in justice. It is something everyone has and uses differently, therefore many opinions arise bringing different outlooks. In doing this, justice becomes more complex.

Justice is not a simple issue of right and wrong. When you look at it more closely, it is far more complex. The internet defines justice as “the quality of being just or fair, the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishment.” This may generalize the meaning of justice but when it is further looked at it arises different concepts, as to why it is so complex.

There are many aspects of justice that we may question; i.e. Do people have different moral reasoning? Are people given a fair trial? Is prejudice present in justice?

In the texts To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee and 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, these concepts or questions are supported and explored in depth supporting the conclusion that justice is complex.

I often wonder what it would be like to live in a world where racism, violence, and injustice don’t exist. A world where everyone, no matter the race, can live in harmony without war, bombings, murder, or any other form of prejudice. I firmly cling to the belief that we are all equal beings. Beings who desire to love and be loved, dream and hope about the future, and want to feel safe and wanted. What if racial integration could be the step toward the goal of complete equality? Evidently, in this world that we live in, that cannot yet be accomplished, but plays and texts like 12 Angry Men could be the shift our world needs. Despite being over 50 years old, 12 Angry Men, draws attention to issues such as racism, violence, and a flawed justice system. Being taught these issues and their effects from an early age, as part of the school’s curriculum, may prevent us from making the same mistakes as our ancestors, in the approaching years.

12 Angry Men, set in the 1950s, is a brilliant play written by Reginald Rose, depicting a young Hispanic boy who is on trial for the murder of his father. A diverse, all-white jury must then come to a methodical, unanimous vote to determine the young boy’s imminent verdict. A preliminary vote revealed that most jurors held a strong stigma towards the young boy due to his race and the fact that he grew up in the slums. Issues like racism are all displayed in this educative play and are still very much applicable to today’s society. Donald Trump, the American president, is a visibly guilty candidate of racism, with his offense by, once again, bringing to light the dark, old-fashioned past of racism. Trump didn’t even have to be on the jury for another legal case involving the Central Park 5, in which 5 young, black teenagers were falsely convicted for the rape of a white jogger, to conclude that the defendants were guilty. (include your opinion of this)

Standing up against these incredibly opinionated topics can be a tough feat and Rose demonstrates this very notion in the play-a lone voice, standing up against a sea of judgment. Juror number 8, a compassionate man who seeks truth and justice, doesn’t vote ‘not guilty’ because he simply thinks that the defendant is necessarily innocent, but because he believes that the group should properly discuss a case with such severe consequences before coming to an undivided vote. He begins to use facts and logic to analyze the case and sway the jury’s decision to provide an accurate conclusion. For example, Juror 8 provides the fact that one of the witnesses would have been unable to hear the boy kill his father due to the train running by the apartment building. One-by-one, the jury begins to see the case from a whole new perspective as juror number 8 enlightens them with the truth.

Today, race still has a large impact on jurors’ votes on certain crimes. Although it would be nice to consider that it didn’t influence their decision. I have heard of many instances in which a Hispanic or African American person has been treated differently due to their race and countless people resent the fact that racism can shape and affect one’s life and even determines life or death. All of this is like an ear-piercingly loud airhorn, yet many pretend they can’t hear it. The jurors who believe the defendant is guilty constantly refer to the defendant as ‘they’ and ‘them,’ as if the boy’s race or social status is a factor in their final vote. Similar to the jurors who give an automatic vote of guilty due to the young boy’s race, today’s society is much the same where people immediately judge depending on their background. That old-fashioned stereotype, still, has not been broken.

Of course, I do think that it is sad and disappointing that a play from more than half a century ago is still significant to issues that occur today. But I am hopeful that future generations will not conform to the cultures and beliefs of past generations and that one day, racism will no longer be a problem that instigates individuals’ worry and fear. We want a world where racism does not exist and working towards that by educating students on these issues and their effects, is one of the greatest actions we can take. Our skin color should not determine the way we are treated and the way we treat others. The only thing that should define us is who we are as a person. There is only one race and that’s the human race.