Ethos Pathos In 12 Angry Men

In his play Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose brings us back in time to 1957, to a jury room of a New York Court of Law where one man, Juror #8, confronts the rest of the jury to look at a homicide case without prejudice, and ultimately convinces Juror #2, a very soft-spoken man who at first had little say in the deliberation. Throughout the play, many of the jurors give convincing arguments that make one think about whether the boy is “guilty” or “not guilty.” Ultimately, one is convinced by ethos, logos, and pathos. We can see ethos, logos, and pathos having an effect on Juror #2 as he begins as a humble man and changes into someone brave at the end. Although all three modes play a part in convincing Juror #2, pathos was the most influential
…show more content…

Some of the arguments and issues with the case that he seems to care most about are the knife Juror #8 bought that is similar to the murder weapon and how fast it took the old man to get to the door. In Act 1, Juror #4 begins to explain that the knife used is very unusual. That even the store-keeper that sold the knife had never seen a weapon like that before. Juror #8 then argues that someone could have possibly gotten a knife similar to the one the boy had and then “reaches into his pocket and swiftly withdraws a knife...they are exactly alike”(23). Juror #2 finds it “interesting that he’d find a knife exactly like the one the boy bought”(24). Afterwards, the 8th Juror suggests that the old man, one of the witnesses, lied because of the point Juror #3 tried to make. Juror #3 says, that the old man “[ran ] to his door and [saw ] the kid tearing down the stairs fifteen seconds after the killing”(42). Juror #8 then suggests that the old man could not have done that because of his stroke. He then decides to recreate what the old man said he did on the night on the murder. Juror #2 seems really interested in this argument and even volunteers to help with the time. In the beginning of Act 2, the jury decides to vote once more. At the time, Juror #2’s vote was “not