Twelve Angry Men is a play by Reginald Rose. First published in 1954, it tells the story of a jury made up of 12 men as they deliberate the guilt or innocence of a defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt.
The play has been adapted for film and television several times, most notably in a 1957 film version starring Henry Fonda. The play was also adapted for an episode of the television series Studio One in 1957, and a 1997 made-for-television film version starring Jack Lemmon.
Twelve Angry Men is often used as a teaching tool in classrooms to discuss issues such as prejudice, stereotyping, and reasonable doubt. The play can also be used to teach about the process of jury deliberation and the United States criminal justice system.
Rose wrote Twelve Angry Men as a television play, which means that it was originally intended to be performed on television, not in a theater. The play is written in the form of a screenplay, with stage directions telling the actors how to move and what to do.
The play is set in a jury room in a New York City courthouse. The action takes place over the course of one afternoon and evening.
The play opens with the judge’s instructions to the jury. He tells them that they must find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if they are to find him guilty at all.
The jury begins its deliberations by taking a vote. Eleven of the jurors vote to convict the defendant, while one juror, Juror 8, votes not guilty.
Juror 8 begins to argue with the other jurors about the evidence in the case. He points out that there is reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt, and he suggests that they should take another vote.
The other jurors are initially unwilling to change their vote, but they eventually agree to reconsider the evidence. They begin to discuss the various pieces of evidence in the case, and they start to see that there may be some doubt about the defendant’s guilt.
As the discussion continues, tensions begin to rise among the jurors. Some of them become angry with Juror 8 for causing them to question their decision, and they start to argue with him.
The discussion becomes so heated that one of the jurors, Juror 3, threatens to kill Juror 8. But eventually, the jurors begin to see that they should not rush to judgment in this case.
They decide to take a final vote, and this time, all 12 jurors vote not guilty. They have been able to see beyond their own biases and prejudices, and they have found the defendant not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Twelve Angry Men is a powerful play that highlights the importance of careful deliberation in the justice system. It also shows how easily people can be swayed by their own biases and preconceptions. The play is an excellent teaching tool for classrooms and can be used to start discussions about a variety of topics.
In Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose explores the potential for human error and misunderstanding in the American legal system. The play follows a jury of twelve men as they debate the fate of a 16-year-old boy accused of murdering his father. As they discuss the evidence, each juror brings their own biases and assumptions to bear on the case, which could ultimately have devastating consequences for the defendant.
The play highlights the importance of critical thinking and an individual’s ability to change their mind based on logical reasoning, instead of succumbing to personal biases. Twelve Angry Men is a classic example of how a group discussion can go horribly wrong when people refuse to listen to reason.
The play is set in New York City in the 1950s. The jury room is hot and stuffy, and the 12 men are exhausted after a long day of deliberating. Tempers start to flare as they argue over the evidence. Some jurors are convinced that the boy is guilty, while others are not so sure. As the discussion progresses, it becomes clear that there are two main camps: those who think the boy is guilty and those who think he is innocent.
The jury begins to vote, and the first vote is 11-1 in favor of conviction. The lone dissenter is Juror 8, who asks for a discussion of the evidence before they render a verdict. The other jurors are angry with him for holding up the process, but he points out that a man’s life is at stake and they need to be sure of his guilt before they convict him.
Juror 8 then proceeds to go through the evidence piece by piece, pointing out flaws in the prosecution’s case. He shows that there is reasonable doubt as to the boy’s guilt and that they should not convict him without being absolutely certain. Slowly but surely, the other jurors start to see his point of view and they begin to change their votes.
By the end of the play, all but two of the jurors have changed their vote to “not guilty”. The final vote is 10-2 in favor of acquittal. The play ends with the jury foreman announcing the verdict and the relieved boy being led away by the court officer.
Twelve Angry Men is a powerful story about how easily justice can be miscarried when people allow themselves to be influenced by personal biases and preconceptions. It is a reminder that we all need to think critically and be open-minded if we are to truly find justice.
The play also illustrates that, when jurors reassess the case and themselves, they will eventually follow the judge’s words to “separate the facts from the fancy.” Throughout the play, all jurors reconsidered both the case and themselves; however, not all were successful. The 4th Juror was find character who managed to successfully renew his knowledge about both simultaneously.
The 4th Juror is the most significant character in the play Twelve Angry Men because he changes his mind, which leads to the not guilty verdict. From the beginning of the play, it is obvious that the 4th Juror has a personal grudge against slum kids. When all jurors vote guilty at first, he immediately objects and says, “I don’t want to talk about reasonable doubt. I got enough doubts of my own” (Rose 54). He clearly states that he does not want to discuss further about this case because he has made up his mind that the defendant is guilty.
However, as the discussion goes on, the 4th Juror starts to realize that there are some inconsistencies in witnesses’ testimonies and some evidences do not match up. For example, the old man who testified that he saw the defendant killed his father said that he had cataracts and was hard of hearing, but when cross-examined by the 4th Juror, he admitted that his eyesight and hearing were just fine (Rose 69).
In addition, the murder weapon found at the scene of crime did not have any fingerprints on it, which means that the murderer must have wiped it clean (Rose 72). These two pieces of evidence alone are enough to create reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the 4th Juror does not want to change his mind because he is afraid of being wrong and looking like a fool in front of everyone.
However, as the discussion wears on, the 4th Juror starts to have second thoughts about the case. He begins to question whether the defendant is really guilty or not. Slowly but surely, he changes his mind and votes not guilty. By the end of the play, he has done a complete 180 and is now convinced that the defendant is innocent.
The 4th Juror’s change of heart is significant because it shows that people can change their mind if they are presented with new information. It also shows that people can overcome their prejudices if they are willing to listen to reason.