12 Angry Men Persuasive Essay

572 Words3 Pages

Every American citizen should serve on a jury because it allows new ideas into the verdict and it is fair to all Americans. In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, Juror 11 says, “I have always thought a man was entitled to have unpopular opinion in this country. This is the reason why I came here. I wanted the right to disagree” (28). To allow all American citizens to serve on a jury, it would allow different views and ideas from other countries to be heard. If it was selective to only a certain group of people or the same twelve Jurors all the time the ending vote for guilty or not guilty would most likely be similar because they would bond through the other cases that they have done together. Which, is unfair for the rest of America if all …show more content…

In Twelve Angry Men, Juror 1(Foreman) says, “Anyway this friend of my uncle’s was on a jury once, about ten years ago- a case just like this one.....They let him off. Reasonable doubt. And do y’know, about eight years later they found out that he’d actually done it, anyway.” By allowing different people onto the jury, they have the ability to give assumptions and information about other cases which can sway and harm the verdict. Another example is, In Twelve Angry Men, Juror 3 says, “Shut up! [lunges at EIGHT, but is caught by two of the JURORS and is held. He struggles as EIGHT watches calmly. Then he screams.] Let me go! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” By allowing every citizen to serve on the jury it can cause the jurors to get off topic and bring in personal matters not needed. If they were selective, verdicts would be made faster and wouldn't allow the jurors to be sidetracked. Those are the reasons why every American citizen should serve on the a jury. It allows new ideas into the verdict and it is fair to all Americans. Likewise, those are the reasons why it is bad to allow every citizen on the

Show More
Open Document