12 Angry Men

918 Words4 Pages
“Facts may be coloured by the personalities of the people who present them.” The decisions that the Jurors make in Twelve Angry Men are personal ones, not objectives one. Discuss. - Juror 8 – he isn’t coloured by judgment, he hasn’t pre-judged like the rest of them, he is seen as the heroic one due to using reason and logic. - Juror 3- coloured by his personal experience with his past. Throughout Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men the jurors deciding the verdict are clouded by their personal experiences and by their pre-judged assumptions instead of having objective views. The 8th juror is the protagonist of the play, he is perceived as the heroic one for using reason and logic to persuade the other jurors to get on side with him instead of his judgment being clouded by personal experiences. Unlike the 3rd juror who has been a part of the jury system for other trials bringing his own personal experience of his son into the case. Juror number 10 is one of the most fervent attackers of the defendants, he is bigoted and generalises the defendant instead of looking at him like an individual. It is the 8th juror who exemplifies the strength and importance of the jury in America’s justice system. Juror number 8 is the only one to vote “not guilty” from the very start, thus putting the play in motion. He understands the importance the impact the decision could make, “it’s just that we are talking about somebody’s life here. I mean, we can’t decide in five minutes” by using reason and logic. He is presented as being a man of strength and dignity, able to complete his social responsibilities because of his awareness that “prejudice obscures the truth”. He is the only one that keeps an objective view as all he wants to do is “talk about it” instead of pre- judging him like the rest who consider him guilty “from day one”. As he uses an objective and impartial view, Rose
Open Document