Jury Duty In Twelve Angry Men

1223 Words5 Pages
“When you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty” quoted by a man whose name is Norm Crosby. People who get called in for jury duty who are biased or unfair on the case have a valid reasoning to be dismissed from sitting in on a jury duty. Although some people don’t always take advantage of this opportunity, they are stuck in attending the jury duty and is unfair because they are biased to the situation. This ties into the short play called “Twelve Angry Men” written by Reginald Rose, because there were jurors who sat in on the case who were biased to the setting and continued to make an appearance at the jury duty. “Twelve Angry Men”, Rose demonstrates the danger…show more content…
The jurors contradict themselves by starting off saying one thing and then later they say or do the exact opposite. Juror number seven in the play contradicted himself at the very beginning by saying the nineteen year old boy who was accused of stabbing his father in the stomach was completely quilty (Rose 315). The only reason Juror seven sided with the defendant being guilty at the beginning is because he didn’t want to sit in on the court case for a long time period because he had tickets for a baseball game which he thought was more of a priority than jury duty. He accused him of being guilty thinking everyone else would as well, therefore the case would end much earlier. He then contradicted himself by saying he was guilty for the longest time and then towards the end he was the only one out of a few others who said he was not guilty. The second juror who contradicted himself was juror number three. He was explaining to juror number eight that the defendant did not say the phrase “I’ll kill you” for no reason if he did not mean it (Rose 336). Shortly after this happened he spoke up to juror eight after two of the other jurors had him held back and hollered “Let me go! I’ll kill him. I’ll kill him!” (Rose 330). He disclaimed his explanation when he told juror number eight that people only say the words “I’ll kill you” if…show more content…
The first juryman who was short with common sense was juror number seven. “Listen, there are eleven of us who think he’s guilty. You’re alone. What do you think you’re going to accomplish?” (Rose 320). He believed that since number five was the only one who didn’t think he was guilty right away he didn’t know what he was talking about. Although it was better that five didn’t come out and accuse him of being guilty because he was thinking about the situation unlike the rest of them who just wanted to get the trial done and over with. The next juror who was in need of more common sense was juror four. He said “The woman saw the killing through the windows of a moving elevated train…” (Rose 324). With number four believing the woman could see every little detail he shouldn’t have a say in the vote because if he was gullible enough to believe anything he heard whether it was true or not, he could end up being on the wrong
Open Document