Stigma In 12 Angry Men

750 Words3 Pages
“I’ll kill him!” (Rose 330). This is our first reactive thought to the man who signs the paper, telling us it is our dreaded time to serve jury duty. This stigma carries over to our perspective in the jury room. Twelve Angry Men is a play written by Reginald Rose in 1957. The play clearly shows a great representation of the problems in the modern day court system. These complications include biased jurors, ignorant and careless jurors, and lazy court-appointed lawyers.
A major problem in the court system is, biased and close minded jurors can often slip through the interview process before the court case. In Twelve Angry Men, Juror Four makes a point that offends Juror Five and shows how judgmentally he thinks; “The children who come out of slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society” (Rose 318). Juror Five takes offense to this because he was successful and born in the slums, and carries on to fight to break the stereotype in the
…show more content…
The men go over many of the testimonies in the jury room, acting them out, proving they cannot be true, and arguing the logistics. The boy’s defense lawyer should have made these points clearer to the men. Although, some people would say that the boy should have contacted his own lawyer in if he wanted quality. Because the boy was young, he was probably not able to afford his own lawyer. Either way, I believe the lawyer should have helped him out. Juror Seven asks the men, “Why didn’t his lawyer bring up all these points?” (Rose 327) Even the men in the jury room realized that the boy’s case was not properly presented. Due to this, the lawyer could have taken more time to help the boy’s chance of receiving an innocent verdict. “He hardly seemed interested” (Rose 318). Juror Eight points out that the boy’s defense lawyer hardly tried. The length of the trial could have been shorter if the lawyer was better at convincing the jurors of the boy’s
Open Document