— Summary of Act 2– Act II resumes in the exact same moment we left Act I. 3rd Juror has just, in a fury, tried to leap at 8th Juror, but is restrained. The Guard goes into, and everything calms down; the jurors resume considerations. Another vote is taken, and the jury is now 6 to 6. They take a break. Throughout this break, it starts to drizzle outdoors. Likewise, they are able to turn the fan on, cooling the room. 3rd Juror attempts to reclaim some of his image; he talks with 4th juror, saying, “I get moved by this. But let me tell you, I’m genuine.” Fourth Juror does not respond well, indicating that 3rd Juror has, in reality, lost trustworthiness.
When considerations resume, 8th Juror efforts to break apart the testament of the jailing police officer that the offender was unable to call the movies that he had declared to have actually seen that night. He asserts that potentially the offender just forgot the names of the films and who remained in them “under terrific emotional distress.” He shows this point by asking 4th Juror what he saw several nights back at the movies. Fourth Juror is not able to react precisely, and the point is made.
The Foreman raises the truth that a psychologist testified that after offering the accused numerous tests, he figured out that the offender had homicidal propensities. Nevertheless, 11th Juror refutes this piece of proof advising the jurors that there is a huge difference in between having bloodthirsty tendencies and devoting murder.
Next, 2nd Juror raises the coroner’s testament that the daddy had been stabbed in the chest “down and in” and likewise that his daddy was six or 7 inches taller than he. While reenacting the mechanics of this stabbing, fifth Juror gets up and begins to take a look at the switchblade. He explains that it would make no sense for someone to stab somebody like that with a switchblade due to the fact that it would need the opponent to lose valuable time. Because the offender was highly qualified with a switchblade, it becomes questionable whether or not he would have made that chest injury.
7th Juror, tired of sitting through these deliberations, decides to alter his vote to ‘not guilty.’ 11th Juror is angered by this, furious that 7th Juror is not respecting the process enough to do what he thinks is right, no matter what that is. The jurors take another vote, and it is now 9 to 3, all but 3rd, fourth, and 10th Juror favor ‘innocent.’ This introduces 10th Juror in an enormous bigoted tirade, which ends with fourth Juror scolding him back into his seat.
Fourth Juror now begins a conversation by reestablishing what he considers to be the most engaging piece of evidence, the testament of the female across the street, who claims to have heard a scream and after that to have seen him stab his daddy through the windows of the raised train passing by. While he is speaking, he rubs his nose where his spectacles have made imprints. This causes 9th Juror to understand that the female also had those very same marks on her nose and should have worn glasses, in spite of the fact that she didn’t wear them in court, most likely for her own vanity. This triggers all of the jurors to question the vision of the female, who might have seen the murder without her glasses. Based upon this, fourth Juror modifications his vote. 10th Juror quits and also alters his vote to “innocent.”
Now, the vote is 11 to 1, and 3rd Juror stands alone. In the beginning, he stands firm, stating that he will be the holdout to make this a hung jury. He launches himself into a last enormous tirade against the kid that descends into nonsense. 8th and fourth Jurors make a brief final plea, and 3rd Juror finally yields, stating “All right. Not guilty.” The Foreman informs the Guard that they have actually reached a decision, and the Jurors leave the courtroom.
— Analysis of Act 2– Act II runs in lots of methods as a reversal of Act I. We see the characters reduced down to their many fundamental composition, based upon how they process the evidence. Besides being a middle in the event, it marks a halfway mark in 8th Juror’s campaign to persuade the other jurors of the accused’s innocence, with a 6-6 vote taken early in the very first act. Whereas in Act I, it looks like the difficult task, now they are on even footing, and the momentum is definitely on his side.
It’s extremely intriguing that Reginald Rose does not provide us in this 2nd act with any enormous awareness that would prove the innocence of the defendant. In reality, it seems that the arguments for his innocence end up being weaker and weaker. 8th Juror utilizes 4th Juror’s failure to remember the names and stars of a film to show that it’s extremely easy to forget such information under excellent psychological tension, however on the other hand 4th Juror was able to name among the films and comes close to having the ability to call the 2nd film, in addition to who starred in it. It would appear that fourth Juror has actually passed 8th Juror’s test, but 8th Juror is able to frame it in such a method that makes him seem correct. While clearly framing 8th Juror as the hero of the play, Rose is extremely mindful not to make him extremely right, to preserve a sense of doubt.
10th and 3rd Juror, the 2 last remaining holdouts for a guilty verdict, are brought to light in this 2nd act. In Act I, we saw both being assisted by their bias, however what seemed to be a mild nod in Act I toward the subconscious psychologies of jurors enters into complete view in Act II, when both are offered long monologues that totally detail the prejudices that govern their decisions. 10th Juror states, “They protest us, they dislike us, they want to ruin us … There’s a risk.” This is a fascinating choice since he’s discussing the threat of the defendant, but everybody in the room– and in the audience– realizes that 10th Juror is the real risk. He is the one that is contaminating our society and is a threat to our legal system and way of life. It’s a dangerous discovery, as it blatantly dramatizes the extremely strong bias that can lay concealed in the American subconscious.
Likewise, we see that 3rd Juror, who has, regardless of his mood, been a rather meaningful voice in the deliberations, is completely driven by his own demons to found guilty the boy, in place of his own boy, with whom he has a troubled relationship. We see the layers of his decision making process peel away in his final monologue. It begins with him chronicling logically the case; however, it rapidly ends up being clear that he is no longer talking about the offender. He says, “I can feel the knife goin’ in,” and we see that his personal connection and confusion about the case runs deep. Lastly, the demon is called when 8th Juror states, “It’s not your kid. It’s someone else.” 3rd Juror lastly gives in to factor. The play seems to be informing us that if we acknowledge and call our bias, we are able to beat them, and ultimately do what is right.
The style of heat emerges in this act, as the oppressive heat of Act I is cooled by the rains and the discovery of a fan in the space. It appears that as the temperature level of the room decreases, so does the temperament of the jurors, and they have the ability to operate more logically.
The very ending of the play, which just has the jurors leaving, reveals that the play was not about the verdict and the accused. If it were, the final scene would be the judge checking out a “not guilty” decision. Nevertheless, the climax is rather 3rd Juror facing his internal dispute and winning versus it. The play is about a group of guys just attempting to do what is right, and they ultimately succeed.