We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

Check Writers' Offers

What's Your Topic?

Hire a Professional Writer Now

The input space is limited by 250 symbols

What's Your Deadline?

Choose 3 Hours or More.
2/4 steps

How Many Pages?

3/4 steps

Sign Up and Get Writers' Offers

"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"
Get Offer

Review of Twelve Angry Men Play

Paper type: Review
Pages: 3 (721 words)
Categories: Law, Leadership, Literature, Persuasion, Plays, Society
Downloads: 48
Views: 295

Twelve Angry Men highlights the importance of seeing things from more than one perspective. Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men is a play concerning 12 jury men who experience the difficulties of coming to a unanimous decision regarding a 16 year old murder suspect. In this case the importance of seeing things from more than one perspective is relevant as a young boy’s life hangs in the balance. Rose highlights this through Juror 3 and 10’s narrow minded views and the ways in which they must be persuaded.

Also it is seen by Juror 8, who feels it only right to have each side of the story broken down and discussed thoroughly.

Rose uses Juror 3 to show that certain jurors are wrong and that if they are not open minded and put their personal prejudices aside they are bound to behave unacceptably and be viewed negatively. Juror 3’s biases and stubborrness to be able to see things from the eyes of others really restricts him from doing justice and giving the boy the trial he deserves as does every human, according to the American Constitution.

He is immediately vocal about the supposed simplicity of the case and the obvious guilt of the defendant when he says ‘The man’s a dangerous killer.

You could see it. ‘ From the beginning it is evident that Juror 3 is narrow-minded and only sees things from one perspective; his own. As the story unravels Juror 3 is seen as violent and a bit crazy hence why Juror 5 asks ‘What’s the matter with you? ‘ when he imitates the stabbing of the victim. Because of Juror 3’s aggressive and stubborn nature he is unable to see that the defendant and his son are two different people and the importance of the trial and what it will mean to the 16 year old boy if found guilty.

He thinks he is doing the world good by getting rid of one of ‘them’ therefore clouding his vision and making it impossible to do justice, which is similiar to Juror 10. Juror 10 also does not see things from a perspective other then his own and this makes it very hard to persuade and give him the chance to see things how they should be seen. Juror 10’s arrogance and bigotry prevent him from discussing the evidence calmly and frequently has him asking things such as ‘How can you make up a thing like that? He refuses to see anything in any way in which isn’t how he views things to be and tosses aside anything different.

This also stops him from carrying out justice and stopping an innocent life from being taken away. It is only by the end of the play when he feels he has no other choice but to change his vote to ‘not guilty’ as he sees his opinion is wrong and has reasonable doubt. He then becomes more open minded and this is the trait one particular Juror has had throughout the entirety of the play.

Juror 8 puts himself in the boys shoes and sheds light onto different ways in which things can be portrayed therefore bringing justice to the case. It is evident that Juror 8 is open minded when he says, ‘If i were the boy I would have asked for a different lawyer’ as it shows that he is thinking outside the box and putting himself in the defendant’s shoes. He is discontent with how the trial has been handled therefore motivating him to push all other jurors to have an open mind and see that not all the facts match up as they should and that there are cracks in the evidence.

He always uses the words ‘maybe’ or ‘possible’ to get the jurors thinking and to make them see for themselves without too much force. Only Juror 3 and 10 as seen above need extra persuading due to their inability to put aside their prejudices. In closing, it is plain to see that in order for justice to be done all jurors must be able to see things from different perspectives. Juror 3 and 10, whether they need a helping hand along the way from open minded Juror 8 to help them build a bridge to get over their prejudices in the end they get there.

Cite this essay

Review of Twelve Angry Men Play. (2016, Dec 13). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/review-of-twelve-angry-men-play-essay

How to Avoid Plagiarism
  • Use multiple resourses when assembling your essay
  • Use Plagiarism Checker to double check your essay
  • Get help from professional writers when not sure you can do it yourself
  • Do not copy and paste free to download essays
Get plagiarism free essay

Not Finding What You Need?

Search for essay samples now


Your Answer is very helpful for Us
Thank you a lot!