Democracy In Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men

1506 Words7 Pages
"Set in the sweltering summer of 1957, Reginald Rose bases his play “12 Angry Men” on the notion that personal experience has the capacity to influence and sway our decisions. *Rose specifically amplifies this ideology as throughout the play, as a myriad of contrasting backstories are seen to be the foundation of the characters judgments. Set amongst a court case apropos to a 16 year old boy convicted of killing his father, the “reasonable doubt” underlying his conviction is explicitly supported by one Juror 8 amidst 11 others. Demonstrating the diversity of the Jurors, Rose illustrates the “2 America’s” that can be observed in the different Jurors identities. In addition the jurisprudence of America enshrines the belief that “the multitude…show more content…
In his introductory statement, Rose preludes that the jury “is the essential component of the American Democracy”. Personalizing his argument by stating that “ on election day, we vote”, Rose alludes to the central conflict that needs to be Resolved within his play. Brick by brick, Rose builds up his prose throughout the longevity of the Jurors tension strung debacle. Sole voice of authority and unbiased opinion, Rose presents the foreman (Juror 1) as the gavel that regulates the conflict of the jury’s opinions. Initially his voice of reason implores to the conscience of the reader to “deliberate honestly and thoughtfully”. Although the foreman is perceived as speaking to the jury here, Rose writes in such a way that his words are also directed at the audience. This can be deduced from the foreman’s appeals that if “there is any reasonable doubt” a “verdict of not guilty” must be brought forth. Leading this charge is Juror 8. Although unsupported at the beginning, he is devoted to justice, and is initially sympathetic toward the 19-year-old defendant. Despite the initial lack of moral support from the fellow members of the jury, throughout the duration of the play Juror 8 reels his fellow jurors in. Rallying encouragement of his opinion, Juror 8 eventually leads the entire jury to acquit the defendant of all conviction. Through the development of Juror 8’s…show more content…
Suspending all their personal beliefs, they transform into an audience overseeing a crime. The mob which is merely an audience enflamed, sparked by a self conceived title of ‘legitimate’ authority is fronted by the likes of Juror 10, 3 & 7; who as mentioned earlier stoically push for the boy to receive the full penalty of his “crime”. Once entering the stronghold of the judicial adjudicators, each juror is “instructed to apply the standard of reasonable doubt”. In order for the life of another to not simply be discarded like a bag of refuse, Juror 8 fronts this argument. Seemingly backed by the constant attempts of the foreman to compose the static of opinions expressed by those voting “guilty, Juror 8’s war see’s many other jurors reformed. Perhaps the most substantial tool to Juror 8s cause is the voice of Juror 5. Having grown up amidst the slums of New York and socialized with the people amongst it, he claims to empathize and appeal the room to seek common ground with the boy. Opposing the prejudice of 10, regarding ‘these people’ as “wild animals”, Juror 5 lathers on personalized glue to Juror 8’s prose, sticking himself into the audience that listens. Underscoring each of the Jurors transformations is hints of their past; Be it Juror 5’s childhood amongst the slums, Juror 11’s inhabitance within
Open Document