The Courage to Stand Alone as Portrayed in Reginald Rose’s “12 Angry Men”

In the 1960 Reginald Rose penned his masterpiece, 12 Angry Men. This play introduces us to twelve men of various statures. All of these men are part of the jury who will decide the fate of a young man, who has been accused of murdering his father. At first glance of the testimonies of the witnesses in the trial, the reader, orience, w ill probably agree with che non of the juvon te quilt of the young all were for one character in this play, juror No. 8, the deliberations of this trial would have been non-existent. At the end of this story other juror, No. 3, states his nearly impenewable opinion, causing a hung jury. After reading or watching this play the audience has some insight into the fact that despite how unfavourable a person’s opinion may be, it is the courage to hold ones ground sometimes with no other support but from himber that must be recognized as a vitae.

This story starts off in the courtroom with the making their way to the deliberation Om to talk about and vote on that of the A votr is to where they stand with one another on the opinions. The men have various reasons for yoting deways they do. Take, for example, who No. 7 says, This better br fast. ve got tickets to The Seven Year lich tonight, or Na. 2 who is a meek, hesitant man who finds it difficult to maintain any opinions of his own. Easily swayed and usually adopts the opinion of the last person to whom he has spoken, and No. 3 whose van won t talk to him anymore because of his father s bitterness against young people. Some of the ocher men on the jury believe that you can t believe a wind peaple from the slums y and since the boy is from the slums, they don t believe his testimony. It is only jurar No. 8 who came into the juris room with a non-bias attitude and who left his personal bergane at the door. He believes that maybe we owe him a few words, but the others believe that they don towe him a thing The evidence against the accused convinces all the jurors of the boys guilt, except for Juror No.

The vidence that has envince the rest of the jurors on gets analyl hy umr No. 8, which causes the others think twice about their verdict. The reason why jutor No. 8 went inta such detail about all of the evidence is b ause He had a peculiar feeling about this uial Somelawellelt that the defense never really conducted a thorough crossexamination. He means the defense lawyer was appointed by the court to defend the boy. He hardly seemed interested. Too many questions were left unasked. There were three pieces of evidence that the prosecution brought up, which each on its could have probably convinced a jury of the boy s guilt the obscure knife, and the two witnesses: the old man, the neighbor downstairs, and the woman, the neighbour from the street. All of these key pieces of evidence were looked over in de jurous room. Nobody but or No. 8 Saw the laws with each Take, for example, the rare switch-knife – which we find out to be not-so-rare- that the boy had bought from a local comer store.

The storekeeper identified it and said it was the only One of its kind he had stock. This testimony had convinced eleven of the lurpes until juror No a swiftly flicks open the base of a switch knife and in the table next to the fast one (knife). They are exactly alike. After this incident, another juror sided with NA Next, the old man and the woman from across the sueel s testimonies gets put to their tests. Like juror No. 3 said. The old man heard the kill yell, Im gonna kill you. A second later he heard the father s bols falling, and he saw the boy running out of the house fifteen seconds after that with the Jury Rooms furniture, Juror No. 8 reenacted the scene that would had to have taken place if the old man were to be able to see all he said he did. Juror No. 8 proved that the old man wouldn’t have been able to move as quickly as be said he did; thus, he was telling the whole truth.

Then went for the woman across the strert. Her l imony proved to be the extended truth as well. She id that that she was unable to fall asleep that night and she sad looked out the window from her bed and saw that whole under take place. This testimony seemed unshakable until or No. 6 said. You know the woman who wified that she saw the killing wu las. Then askelThis woman wouldn’t weather eveglasses to bed, would she? This statement radiates light on the fact that She testified that in the midst of her tossing and tuming she rolled over and looked casually out the window. The murder was taking place as she looked out, and the lights went out a split second later. She couldn’t have had time to put on her wasses say that she only saw a blur, No. 8 said. These facts changed the most of the jurors verdicts to Do guilty Near the end of these alterations, it is only the stubbom and bitter or No. who stands alene, Hr, ino- in enmity – changes his mind to make the verdicta animais Not Guilty.

This play shows it audience that although some of us have different and sometimes adverse views, respect for other various opinions must be prominent. We can try to change the views of others by informing them and by not domineering over them with our opinions. The underlying theme of this play was at one time said by jutor No. 9. It takes a great deal of C standalone.

Did you like this example?

4665

636