Why Are Many of the Jurors Initially Blinded to See the Truth of the Case? Discuss.

1139 Words5 Pages
‘Twelve Angry Men’ authored by Reginald Rose demonstrates through harsh times of New York, the fragility of the judicial system. Reginald rose exhibits that many jurors were somewhat blinded at the start of the play to the truth, but through courage and conviction and the triumph of the judicial system as displayed through juror 8, they are able of overcoming personal vendettas and fears and obscure the truth. However jurors 10, 3, and 8 are used to contrast this. It is evident that through prejudice and stereotypical opinions, prevent jurors from determining the difference between what is morally right or legally right, and can somewhat cloud jurors inability of declaring the truth. Unmistakable through juror 10’s hostile and aggressive tone displayed, he is led to believe that not only is the boy from a ‘low social economic’ background but “…he’s type…they are- wild animals… they’re going to breed us out of existence.” His prejudice opinions constantly blind him from declaring ‘reasonable doubt’ despite current mishaps presented in the evidence. He continued to manipulate the facts, data and statistics in order to retain his masculinity until proven wrong. Juror 10 did not see eye to eye with any other juror or character and announced that it was a “waste of time.” Furthermore juror 10 continued to vote ‘guilty’ in his ambiguous attempt to send the boy off to an electric chair, helped prove Reginald Rose’s perceptions of letting prejudice and stereotypical thoughts cloud the mind of seeing the truth. Unlike Juror 10, juror 3’s reasons and logic were question due to his previous feud with his ashamed history with his son. Personal vendettas presented in juror 3 prevent him from having ‘reasonable doubt’. Due to the constant reminder of his past relationship with his son, determining the verdict of ‘not guilty’ was almost impossible and continued to vote
Open Document