Jury In “Twelve Angry Men” Essay
Jury In “Twelve Angry Men”
i. Why is it so difficult for the jury in Twelve Angry Men to reach its final verdict? Rose shows that in Twelve Angry Men it is difficult to reach a verdict when jurors essentially have pre conceived ideas and bring personal prejudice in a case, along with Jurors that lack interest. These factors undoubtedly cause conflict and difficulty in the Jury system, which highlights a potential weakness in the democratic process. The trouble also arises from the fact that Juror 8 is one of the few Jurors to initially deliberate honestly and thoughtfully and seeks to obtain justice. Rose suggests that there needs to be active participation In ensuring the jury system operates as intended, and when there is, the final verdict is easier to achieve. Rose suggests that it is hard for the Jury to reach its verdict when Jurors have pre-conceived ideas and show racism.
Rose showcases the trouble in individuals having personal prejudice in a case as it can blind them from the facts. This in turn, hinders the Jurors to come to an agreement, as it thwarts their ability to reason and see things from another’s point of view. This notion is highlighted through the bitter Juror 10, who Is the embodiment of racism and prejudice. Juror 10 signifies the potential power of racism, as he believes “the kids who crawl outta those places are real trash.” Ultimately, this pre conceived idea creates difficulty in constructing a rational opinion on the case, as this belief closes the door on his ability to think from another perspective. In addition, It is difficult for him to reach an agreement as he isn’t prepared to dissect the “facts” from the “fancy.”
This is further underpinned, as he can’t see the evidence from another perspective, as he is “sick and tired of facts.” His inability to consider another point of view articulates his close-minded character, that can’t see past his racism and pre conceived ideas. His resentment and bitterness is manifested in his behaviour, as he is “suddenly angry” or “disgusted”. This allows Rose to condemn those who cant see past their prejudice and justify why it is difficult for him to come to an understanding as his anger showcases his irrational and illogical character. Through Juror 10 Rose suggests that when individuals bring pre-conceived ideas and arnt prepared to deliberate truthfully it is difficult to come to an unanimous verdict.
Rose also underpins the difficulty in coming to a final verdict by showcasing individuals that bring personal prejudice in a case. Through juror 3, Rose underlines the effect personal prejudice can have on one’s ability to deliberate fairly. Juror 3’s emotional baggage hinders him from being able to go through the democratic process properly and determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Rose suggests that without careful deliberation it is hard to come to an agreed verdict as prejudice prevents individuals from carrying out their civic duty. Juror 3’s personal prejudice and experience is highlighted through his belief that the defendant has “got to burn,” which suggests that it is hard to see ideas from another’s view point, if an individual is more concerned with their personal problems.
The difficulty in reaching a final verdict for juror 3 is underlined through his inability to listen to the other Jurors opinions, and is only able to agree with those who see it from his point of view. This is underlined through him constantly agreeing with those who criticize the boy as he comments “listen to this man. He knows what he’s talking about” and “that’s absolutely right.” His personal prejudice prevents him from having an open mind about the other Jurors opinions and can only agree with those who criticize the defendant. Through this, Rose comments on how difficult it is to reach a final verdict when Jurors that show prejudice aren’t open minded and arnt willing to discuss alternative ideas.
Rose underlines how difficult it can to be reach a final verdict when individuals show a lack of interest for the case and arnt prepared to think for themselves. Rose implies that those who arnt willing to take the case seriously are a danger to the system and make it a struggle to come to a final agreement. Juror 7 is apathetic to the jury process, as he is more concerned with his own welfare than deliberating honestly and discussing the case. He represents those who place self interest above civic duty, which makes it harder for him to contribute to the final verdict outcome.
His impatience and belief that discussing the case “better be fast” articulates his self centered nature and how he is more concerned with his own personal desires. In addition, it is through Juror 6 that contributes to the difficulty in coming to an unanimous verdict, as he isn’t prepared to think for himself. His lack of confidence and inability to contribute to the case is highlighted through him saying he “isn’t used to supposing.” Rose suggests that in order for a verdict to be reached, all members must participate in an open discussion.
While it is difficult to reach a final verdict, Rose suggests that the jury system requires participation in order for a verdict to be achieved. Juror 8 is one of the few Jurors that is prepared to stand up against the majority and defend the democratic process. It is difficult to reach a final verdict as Juror 8 initially is the only one who sees this as “grave responsibility” as the “death sentence is mandatory.” He shows his concern for the case as he provokes discussion and seeks to obtain justice. However, it is when many of the other juror’s arnt able to follow the process suggests that coming to an agreement is hard without active participation.
It is through the active participation that allows the process to thrive and make it easier to come to a verdict. This is evident through quiet Jurors such as Juror 2 to participate and make a contribution to the case, making it easier to come to a final verdict. This is highlighted as he questions evidence “about the business about the stab wound and how it was made.” His ability to participate in discussion suggests that participation is essential in coming to a final verdict. In addition, Juror 9’s involvement picks up on the old lady’s eyesight, which is a leading factor to the final verdict. Therefore Rose stresses that in order for a final verdict to be reached, participation is required from the jury system. In addition, without contribution it makes it difficult to come to an agreement.
Rose stresses how difficult coming to a unanimous agreement is when Jurors have pre conceived ideas, prejudice, racism and arnt interested in taking an interest in the case. However, he suggests that when Jurors make a contribution and actively participates an agreement is finally reached.