Discuss the view that Twelve Angry Men is a vehicle through which Reginald Rose vindicates

rather than destroys the legitimacy of the jury system as a means of securing justice.
Brainstorming:
The play as a whole, when considering the context of the McCarthy trials and Cold War
Witnesses are fallible
Jurors themselves are fallible
Juror 8 is representative of an idyllic juror rose is suggesting the ideal for all Americans and humans
to strive towards (righteous and reasoned.)
Themes
The Value Of the Facts
Prejudice
Techniques
Characterisation varied character ensemble to highlight the different areas of fallibility
Discuss the view that Twelve Angry Men is a vehicle through which Reginald Rose vindicates
rather than destroys the legitimacy of the jury system as a means of securing justice.
Introduction:
The 1950s saw America swept up in the ideological turmoil of the Cold War and the subsequent witchhunt of the McCarthy trials. It is within this climate that theatrical productions such as Reginald Roses
Twelve Angry Men were created. Rose uses the jury deliberation of a young murder defendant from the
slums, to highlight the power of the US judicial system and the power of collaborative decision-making.
Similarly, deliberate construction of the ensemble character set by Rose, not only captures the melting
pot of cultures and classes apparent within America at the time, but also reinforces the equalisation of
citizens as peers within the jury room. Other viewers of the play however, may see the deliberate
characterisation choices as a vehicle through which Rose is able to highlight the ways that prejudice in
all its forms, along with apathy, can compromise the legitimacy of the judicial process.
Body Paragraph 1:
Rose uses the jury deliberation of a young murder defendant from the slums, to highlight the power of
the US judicial system and the power of collaborative decision-making.
The strength of the collaborative decision-making process within the US judicial system, is clearly
apparent as one of Roses central ideas and intentions within this play. The mise-en-scene of the play
is entirely designed to focus the audience on the deliberation room and the action therein. The sparse
set of a large, drab, bare room in need of painting with a large, scarred table as the central focus,
directs viewers attention entirely to the action of the twelve angry men as the decide upon the fate of the
defendant. Each of the five votes that occur throughout the course of the play, revolve around points of
heightened tension. From the onset, the audience hears the judge remind the jurors however you
decide, your verdict must be unanimous. This immediately reinforces the focus of the play and the
dialogue, which comes. Juror Eight launches the narrative dialogue with his initial decision to vote not
guilty. He proclaims, I just want to talk. His decision to take this stand at the beginning of the play,
allows for the dialogue that ensues. It is through this dialogue that we subsequently see and understand
the power of collaborative decision-making. Together, the men question the testimony of witnesses and
the evidence provided by the prosecution. In doing so, we reach the conclusion of the play with a sense
that justice has been served with the acquittal of the defendant. Whilst we do not ever truly understand

if the young man is guilty or not, it is irrelevant as reasonable doubt has been established and the jury
process has served its function.
Body Paragraph 2:
Similarly, deliberate construction of the ensemble character set by Rose, not only captures the melting
pot of cultures and classes apparent within America at the time, but also reinforces the equalisation of
citizens as peers within the jury room.
The choices made by Rose as to the characterisation of his jury further function to promote the value of
the jury process within the US justice system, whilst simultaneously serving as a representation of the
time and culture in which this play was written. The ensemble of characters is entirely male, with no
explicit reference to ethnicity apart from the German Juror Eleven. We are given the impression
however, that the group are each Caucasian, from a diverse group of backgrounds and experiences. In
many ways, this captures the cultural melting pot that was New York in the 1950s, with middle-class
citizens; blue and white collar workers, people living in inner city as well as those from slum areas,
alongside new migrants to America. In this way, Rose provides a snapshot of New York and the
broader US at this time. The deliberate construction of the characters in this play also serves to justify
the jury system as a process. It highlights the strength of seeking and exacting justice via the
judgement of ones peers, in comparison to other hierarchical justice structures, that perhaps do not sit
well within the democratic ideology of Americans. This jury is made up of a variety of individuals from
different education backgrounds, cultural mediums and age groups, each sitting together as equals in
the pursuit of justice. Juror Five who has grown up in the slums where switch knives came with the
neighbourhood, sits alongside and contributes to the deliberation in the same way as Juror Four, the
broker, who is introduced reading a newspaper wondering how the market closed. It becomes
increasingly apparent as the play progresses, that the sense of justice seen at the conclusion of the
second act is only possible because of the different perspectives and experiences of this diverse group
of men. Each individual carries with them an equal weight of responsibility in this setting. The authors
characterisation choices here serve to highlight how the judicial process is a strong and admirable force
within the US justice system as a whole.
Body Paragraph 3:
Other viewers of the play however, may see the deliberate characterisation choices as a vehicle
through which Rose is able to highlight the ways that prejudice in all its forms, along with apathy, can
compromise the legitimacy of the judicial process.
In contrast, Roses intentions behind the diversity of the group within the play can be interpreted as a
mechanism to bring to the forefront how the idea and belief in justice can be compromised by human
faults such as prejudice and apathy. From the initial vote of eleven to one guilty, viewers understand
the jurors collective perception that this is one of those open and shut things. As the narrative
progresses however, we learn the motivations behind each of the jurors vote and see how their
judgement has been coloured, or as some would see it, tainted by subjective interference. Juror Ten is
painted as a bigot who, early in the play is labelled an ignorant man by Juror Nine over his prejudicial
comments and predispositions against the socio-cultural background of the defendant. He announces,
You cant believe a word they say. I mean, theyre born liars. His gross stereotyping of people from
the slums climaxes in a rant in the second act, where he derogatorily claims These people are
multiplying they are wild animals if we dont smack them down whenever we can, then they are
gonna own us. Juror Ten can be seen as a deliberate construct by Rose, designed to demonstrate how
societal or cultural prejudices can hinder reasoned judgement. His prejudice is reinforced by the
deliberate repetition of they and them, heightening his belief of the slum population as other. In the
case of this deliberation, this prejudice has the potential to compromise the legitimacy of the judicial
process as Juror Ten is a forceful figure. He only succumbs when confronted by Juror Four, who
forcefully asks him to Sit down. And dont open your filthy mouth again. In a similar way, Juror Three
serves to highlight how personal emotions should not be allowed to cloud objectivity. In the climatic

ending to the second act, we learn that the third jurors obstinacy with regards to his vote is based upon
his personal experiences and interactions with his own son and his attitudes regarding parental
disrespect. He pleadingly proclaims to the other jurors, I don't care what kind of man that was. It was
his father. That goddam rotten kid. I know him How they kill you every day Jeez, I can feel that
knife goin in. Rose focuses on this dramatic revelation of personal prejudice through the stage
directions reinforcing that The others are silent. The play only concludes when this personal prejudice
is addressed by Juror Eight stating, Its not your boy. Hes somebody else allowing Juror Three to
leave aside his subjectivity and vote Not guilty. Again, this deliberate construction of Juror Threes
character by Rose, provides a commentary of sort on the dangers of allowing prejudice compromise the
pursuit of justice a danger apparent within any jury made up of diverse individuals.
Body Paragraph 4:
The inclusion of Jurors such as Seven and Twelve, serve to function as indicators of how dangerous
apathy and indecision can be in the pursuit of justice. Their presence reminds us that individuals such
as this exist in society and as such, can compromise the judicial process. Juror Seven is immediately
presented as a larrikin of sorts, crudely commenting on the testimony of the defendant by saying, what
about that business with the knife... asking grown-up people to believe that kind of bullshit. It is also
quickly established that he has no interest in deliberating: This better be fast. I got tickets to a ball
game tonight lets vote. Who knows, maybe we can all go home. This apathy comes to a head
when Juror Eleven confronts Juror Sevens lack of care in voting, saying you have not right to play like
this with a mans life. This is a terrible and ugly thing to do. Dont you care? Similarly Juror Twelve
is presented as indecisive. One of his few moments of contribution is when he claims to have an idea
at the beginning of the second act, but admits that he hasnt put much thought into it. Later when he is
pushed by Juror Three to contribute his thoughts to the argument surrounding the testimony about the
knife, he repeatedly says, I dont know with stage directions from Rose indicating that The 12th Juror
hesitates for a moment. He is confused, but trying to be honest. Both the indecision of Twelve and the
apathy of Seven can be interpreted by viewers of the play, to be further indicators of the dangers of the
judicial system in delivering justice. As such, this reading of the action on stage, could be interpreted as
an indictment of the system as a whole, as it elucidates the potential for the corruption of justice.
Conclusion:
Roses concentration of his drama within the confines of the deliberation room, draws the attention of
audience members to the focus of the play the function of the judicial process within the justice
system. The narrative celebrates the collaborative nature of the environment and the way a variety of
jury members from particularly different backgrounds and levels of education, work together to achieve
an outcome. Conversely, the very nature and construction of the characters in the play, serve to
highlight how the open diversity of juries allows for individuals who are swayed by personal or culturallybased prejudice, as well as indecisiveness or apathy. These individuals have the ability to corrupt the
judicial process, subsequently undermining the justice system. From either perspective, Rose
encourages audience members to examine the role of a jury and its place in a democratic society.