Critical Essay on Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose

Introduction

Twelve Angry Men is Reginald Rose's play. Twelve different jurors are present in a jury room. They come from diverse backgrounds. They are to "separate facts from fancy" and determine if "reasonable doubt to guilt of [the young boy] accused" (Act 1). Although the play shows the flaws in the criminal justice system, juror eight proves that there is faith and support for the jury system. Juror eight is a calm, thoughtful man who can see all sides to every question. He fights for justice against the biases of other jurors and wins the case for the defendant. Without juror eight, an innocent man would have been executed. Twelve Angry Men uses juror eight as the protagonist to show that, despite prejudice and evil in the justice system there are jurors like juror eight who represent a bright future for the criminal justice systems.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Juror 8 fights for justice against biases shown by other jurors. This gives the audience hope that there will be more jurors fighting for justice. It is evident that jurors had already decided their fates when they entered the jury room. Juror eight, however, "votes not guilty" and persuades the other jurors to examine the evidence and witness testimony more closely (Rose). Juror eight stated that it was difficult for him to "raise my hand and send off a boy to die without speaking about it" (Act 1), proving that he is willing to examine reasonable doubt and fight for justice regardless of whether the other jurors disagree. Juror three is sadistic. However, juror eight says that their only job as jurors was to prove reasonable doubt. Eight asks three if he's "his executioner?" (Act II), which shows that he doesn't mind disagreeing with other jurors who have prejudiced towards the suspect. Eight also challenged juror three on his knowledge of knife fighting. He asked him "Doesn’t it seem awkward to handle a knife? For an experienced knife fighter?" Act III. He proves that jurors are wrong eight times per week, which shows that he doesn't mind fighting for justice against biases.

Twelve Angry Men juror eight proves there is reasonable doubt, and the defendant is acquitted. Juror eight tells the other jurors that it isn't his intention to "make anyone accept [other possibilities]". Juror eight simply states that it is possible. He is trying to show that witnesses may not be reliable and to persuade the other jurors of their lack of open-mindedness. Juror eight is able to acquit the defendant because he explains to the ignorant that their job as jurors is to find reasonable doubt and to decide "whether or not the boy is guilty" (Act II), and not prove his innocence. Juror Eight finds reasonable doubt in all witness testimonies. He shares this information with the other jurors, explaining how false and unreliable the testimonies might be.

Juror eight explained to jurors that the witness who claimed that the boy said "I'm going out to kill you" was not reliable. He explained that the man who testified that the boy ran down the stairs with him, because it took him more than 15 seconds to get from his bedroom to his front doors. The testimony of the shopkeeper, who claimed that he sold the boy "unusual knives" (Act I), was also disputed by jurors. However, juror eight had the exact same knife, which led some jurors to believe that the storekeeper was lying. Jurors five and eight have reasonable doubts about the manner in which the father was murdered. The boy was raised in poverty and should have been proficient in knife fighting. A skilled knife fighter would not inflict the same wound as the victim. The jurors also doubt the possibility that the victim saw the murder through the windows of the El train's last two windows. Because she has thick bifocals, it is nearly impossible to see clearly in darkness. The testimony of the witness was used by a majority of jurors to justify a guilty verdict. The defendant was more likely to be acquitted if they could find reasonable doubt in the witness statements.

Number eight's opinions on the trial are based on compassionate and reasonable decisions. This is a positive sign for the criminal justice system. Juror eight is hardworking throughout the play and ensures that his decisions are "based on facts". (Jeffery 1). Juror eight clarifies that his goal is not to convince other jurors that he is innocent. Juror eight is only interested in speaking for a while and feels that he has a responsibility to the boy. (Act I) About whether there is reasonable doubt. Juror eight wants the jurors to be compassionate and reasonable. Eight weighs all the possible outcomes to ensure fair trials. He explains to the four that it is possible that the boy lost his knife and that another person stabbed his father with the same [one]" (Act II). Eight wants the other jurors to see that there are reasonable doubts about this case. Eight wants jurors all to understand that there is reasonable doubt, and that their verdicts are based upon reasonable decisions. However, he assures them that they have the right to determine that the defendant is guilty. This shows that juror eight is compassionate and believes that other jurors should feel the same.

Eight gives faith to the jury system by showing that he is fair, educated and not afraid of disagreeing with others. Juror 2 believed the defendant was guilty simply because no one had proven otherwise. Eight countered his assertion by saying that "Nobody has any evidence to the contrary." The prosecution bears the burden of proof. "The defendant doesn't need to open his mouth" Act I, this is a sign that jurors are well-informed about their jobs and the workings of the judiciary system. Eight also shows that he knows the judicial system well by telling the other jurors that their sole job is to decide whether the boy is guilty or not. (Act II). The boy would have been convicted if juror eight hadn't informed the other jurors about this information. Jurors didn't know the system. Eight also talks about how the defense counsel for the boy "hardly seemed interested" and how they are overwhelmed with work. This exposes the fact that attorneys don't have the time or resources to properly defend their clients. Many innocent men are sentenced to prison for not having the money to properly defend themselves. Although the defense counsel did a poor job and tried to defend his client, juror 8 tried his best to prove there was reasonable doubt. This gave faith in the judiciary system. Number eight was the only juror who stood up for justice and tried to convince others that they should have a discussion before deciding their verdict. Without him, the jury system would be shaky.

An innocent man would be executed if juror eight was not present. Juror eight proved to the jurors that there was reasonable doubt. Without him being brave enough to do so, the jurors would have voted guilty. He also exposed the inconsistencies of witness testimony. Juror eight is a man who is focused upon the truth of the case, and refuses to let go until all the jurors have faced it" (Drohan). He asked juror five, "Do you believe he lied?" (Act I), to let those who are afraid or quiet know that they aren't alone. Juror eight assisted five, a young man who was naive and scared. Number nine is also a man who is uncertain about the case. Juror eight supports him, telling him that he "has a right to hear" (Act II). Without juror nine's thoughts about the old witness who testified, no one would be able to understand why the witness had lied to feel important. Juror eight also saves the boy by his "proposition" Act I. Eight proposes to take another vote. If he fails to convince any jurors there was reasonable doubt, he will change the verdict to guilty. However, if there are less then eleven votes for guilty, he will continue to show that there is more reasonable suspicion in the case. This proposition proves that he has a reasonable doubt and stops the boy being prosecuted.

Conclusion

Eight worked tirelessly all through the play to ensure the defendant got a fair trial. Eight, unlike the other jurors knows that his job is to decide if there was reasonable doubt and not to determine whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. To symbolize a bright future for the criminal justice system, juror eight employs compassion, reasonable doubt, and justice. An innocent boy would not have been tried without juror 8. He is a symbol of faith in the jury system. His opinions are reasonable, compassionate, and he also proves reasonable doubt. He fights for justice against biases.