The Nature of the Jurors of 12 Angry Men Essay

To put several guys in a room to decide the fate over a lawbreaker can cause numerous biases being revealed in ways to back up one’s viewpoint on the case. The individual preferences & & predispositions made by some people who occur to be part of a jury can ultimately either place an innocent guy in prison or let a guilty guy run free. The Reginald Rose play Twelve Angry Men reveals just how hazardous it is for jurors to bring their personal programs to the table through the bigoted biases of Juror 10 and the hatred of kids through Juror 3.

However, besides the famed Juror 8, 2 other jurors for absence of a much better term “reduce the effects of” the jury room circumstance happening in the have fun with their non-biased viewpoints of the case. The old and helpless Juror 9 and the European refugee Juror 11 stand as voices of reason along with Juror 8, as well as supply different viewpoint to the case through their experiences.

Both males had actually lived more special lives than the other jurors, such as how J9 is 90 and J11 grew up in … Soviyugoslavbania … it’s never specified, actually. Point is, both offer differing techniques due to their preference in the case, their stability to it, and their experience.

Although sensation as he’s prepared to pass away, Juror 9 attempts his best in this jury space to make certain another guy doesn’t. As defined by the character descriptions, he’s seen as a hopeless-on-life old male, which can be seen through the text. He seems peaceful till he has to speak out, whether he would be asked to speak or if somebody starts speaking hate or bigotry. He appears genuine about seeing the case through considered that the penalty, if seen guilty, is death. He’s the first guy to bring up the fact that “It’s only one night. A guy might die”*, to validate why they ought to all relax and talk about the case further even if they feel it’s not essential. He likewise feels devoted to having Juror 8 advance about how the defendant might be innocent by being the first one to agree him, regardless of everyone’s negative response.

He applauds Juror 8 for picking not to stand with the majority, saying how “It takes a lot of courage to stand alone even if you think in something really strongly.”** He states that “He (Juror 8) left the decision up to us. He bet for support and I offered it to him”**, which demonstrates how the case indicated to him. He more than likely, with Juror 8, felt unpleasant with letting what could have been an innocent guy into the chair. Juror 9 is a really sincere and straight-forward male who wouldn’t take nonsense and who is not afraid to go against a majority, regardless of what everybody else thought. He wanted to make sure the trial didn’t just end there; he wanted the non-guilty verdict to be heard.

Coming from a nation that did not have the freedoms America had and still has, Juror 11 likewise works as another different figure who certainly experienced a more unique upbringing than any of the other jurors. Juror 11 is identified as a humble guy who would put justice as his leading priority in a case such as this, seeing how such was absent in his the old country. He, like Juror 8, is concrete about his declaration and reveals heavy enthusiasm in the reality that he lives in a nation that permits the chance for a “jury of one’s peers” to even exist. At the start of Act III, he voices his compliments to his current nation for summoning him and the other jurors to “select the guilt or innocence of a male; of a guy we had not understood before. We have nothing to get or lose by our decision.

This is among the reasons that we are strong.”***. Through context, the love this male has for rights we take for approved every day in a democracy appears. Along with his love for our justice system, he’s likewise a male who puts emphasis on how important integrity and sticking to your beliefs is. He thinks in such thing like Liberty of Speech, as this sort of thing would probably never ever happen in his homeland of any place the hell it is. He has passion for the trial, a quality that prevails with other members of the jury. He has a pursue justice and he has actually helped grant that justice through his decision and stability.

The jury space sometimes might turn into a war room. The fight over guilt or innocence is bound to bring out individual programs and biases, this is no different. Although some were picked bigotry, hatred, or simply plain uninterest in the event, two votes stuck out as dignified votes (Not saying they were the only ones), those of Juror 9 and Juror 11. They voted on what they eventually thought was right and refused to see a guy that might have been innocent tossed into the chair. They demonstrate how essential it genuinely is to have stability.


*– Rose, Reginald 12 ANGRY GUYS, Remarkable Publishing Company 1954– Page 25, NINE

**– Rose, Reginald 12 ANGRY MEN, Dramatic Publishing Company 1954– Page 28, NINE

***– Rose, Reginald 12 ANGRY GUYS, Significant Publishing Business 1954– Page 44, ELEVEN

You Might Also Like