Duty In 12 Angry Men

1052 Words5 Pages

What is the duty of jurors? Jurors fulfil a very important function in the legal system. In a criminal trial, they are charged with the responsibility of deciding whether, on the facts of the case, a person is guilty or not guilty of the offence for which he or she has been charged. However, in the play Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose indicates how jurors’ perceptions of the case are changed by their personal prejudices, such as life experience and emotion. When a person is selected to be a juror, he should be confident with the decision that he makes and do not be a follower. After the first vote in act one of the play, there is eleven to one, eleven guilty, and one not guilty. Juror Eight asks why Juror Two thinks the boy is guilty. …show more content…

In act one of Twelve Angry Men, Juror Seven is a loud and flashy man who has more important things to do than to sit on a jury. Especially he says, “Right. This better be fast. I’ve got tickets to (pg. 13).” The word “fast” shows that he wants to get out the room as soon as possible. He pays more attention on the show that he wants watch than the case. Also, in his mind, he expects that everyone has the same thought as he because he thinks this case is easy based on the proven evidence and testimonies. On another hand, “fast” also shows that Juror Seven does not care about if the boy is guilty. He only cares about himself and his time, and he does not think logically before he votes. Also, when twelve jurors discuss the facts, Juror Seven brings up something. He says, “Look at the kid’s record. He stole a car. He’s been arrested for mugging. I think they said he stabbed somebody in the arm,” and “he was picked up for knife fighting. At fifteen, he was in reform school.” Those two sentences show that he believes the boy is guilty based on the bad record of the kid. He also believes that once the boy becomes a bad boy, he never becomes a good boy again. Juror Seven is adding his emotion to the discussion. He is not able to see things clearly, and it also shows how ignorant he is. Juror Seven’s ignorance does not only destroy the boy’s …show more content…

21)” This sentence describes how angry Juror Three is in this case. “He hit me in the face” is a key that makes Juror Three votes guilty because in the case the boy is suspected he murders his father by putting a knife into his chest. In other words, Juror Three very hates young people hurt their parents. As parents, they obviously love their kids so much, even sometimes they hurt them from physically or mentally, but it is still a way that shows their love. That’s why if their kids against them, they will be so upset, this is also a reason Juror Three says he hates tough kids. In this case, he never thinks about the boy is not guilty. He wants the boy to receive some punishments which maybe help the boy to create a good behavior. Also at the end of the play, Juror Three says, “I don’t care whether I’m alone or not! I have a right,” and “A guilty man’s going to be walking on the streets. A murderer!! He’s got to die! Stay with me!” Those sentences are said before the final vote, which is eleven vote not guilty, and one votes guilty after they test all evidence. Those sentences also show that Juror Three is very emotional because the boy makes him remember the bad relationship between his kid and him. That’s why even though many people change their minds after all discussion, he still goes for guilty because he has already been sure the boy is guilty since the beginning. Fortunately, he maybe realizes that he cannot treat this case with his anger. That does not help the

Show More
Open Document