Twelve angry men shows’ that the jury system shows that personal experiences are the strongest feeling to influence human decision making. Discuss Roses play Twelve Angry Men is about a dissenting juror in a murder trial who slowly manages to convince the other jurors that the case they are examining is not as obviously clear as it seemed in court. The defence and the prosecution have rested and the jury is filling into the jury room to decide if a young sixteen year old ethnic boy is guilty or innocent of murdering his father.
It begins as an ‘open and shut’ case of murder, but soon becomes a mini drama of each of the jurors’ prejudices and preconceptions about the trial, the accused, and each other, which every jury room tries to avoid. Prejudices’ and misconceptions are formed through personal experiences which influence human decision making, which is shown throughout the play from all jurors but is distinctively (not the right word) shown through Juror 3. The third juror is the most ardently outspoken about the ‘guilt’ of the teenager.
As the play goes along it is revealed he has a personal connection with what has happened, he feels anger towards his own son, an anger which he has transferred onto the accused. A key moment for the third juror is when he finally changes his vote to ‘not guilty’ which is when he is reminded by the 8th juror “It’s not your boy. He’s somebody else’”, followed by juror stating “let him live”. Right up to this point, the third juror is committed to his ‘guilty’ vote.
By juror 3 allowing his emotional baggage to enter the jury room with him it is clear that from the beginning of the play, his personal experience with his son were physiologically too powerful for him to be able to make the right verdict for the defendant. Just like Juror 3, Juror 4 a man of wealth and position is a practiced speaker who presents himself well at all times is a very racist man. He is only concerned with the ‘facts’ in this case, as he states “gentlemen, this case is based on a reasonable and logical progression of facts.
Let’s keep it there’ and is appalled with the behavior of others, without acknowledging how he is behaving towards the case. He is a man who is detached and unmoved by the jurors explanations, this is evident as he says “that’s enough, isn’t it? ’, he brings his arrogance and self confidence with his privileges as he is a stockbroker. It is shown throughout the play that juror 4’s background positions him to judge the boy and make a decision about him until he is persuaded by juror 8 that there is a ‘reasonable doubt’ even though he may not be innocent.
Unlike the third juror and the fourth juror, the eight juror does not judge the boy and just say he is ‘guilty’. Eights ‘not guilt’ position in both the first and final votes tells us many things about his character. It is clear that he is willing to question the authority of prosecutions, and to keep an open mind about some of the evidence and ‘facts’ from the case. He states that he was concerned that the ‘defense counsel wasn’t doing his job’ and notes that ‘witnesses are only people. People make mistakes’.
He is a man who is unafraid to publicly vote against the eleven other jury men, who unlike many of the jurors at the start of the play can see that he has a moral duty, even though it is clear that many of the jurors are not tolerant of his decisions. He holds his personal conviction consistently, as evidenced by the fact that his vote is the same at the final count. He is able to explain how the system works showing that he is an intelligent man. This shows that Juror eights individual judgments shape how he has taken his steps to see that the boy may not be ‘guilty’ but there definitely is a ‘reasonable doubt’ present.
