The Jury System In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

595 Words3 Pages
The American jury system is know throughout the country and with its reputation, it’s incorrect. Reginald Rose proved a great stand on the jury with his play, Twelve Angry Men, as this shows the flaws and adept qualities in the jury room. Throughout the play the jury is debating whether or not the defendant is guilty of murdering his father. The jury began at eleven guilty and one not guilty to at the very end all not guilty. The play shows all the possibilities that happen in a jury room. -ADD WHAT GUNNA TALK ABOUT- With the play in mind, the jury system should be renewed though it proves to be effective to justice. IMPROVE THESIS -jury of your peers REFRESH THE THESIS PRESENT TENSE When going to trial one should have a jury of their peers, though it’s usually a dozen of people who have little to no idea how to understand you. In the play Twelve Angry Men the defendant is from a bad part of town and almost everyone in the jury has no idea what he could've been though expect juror 5. Juror 10 is unknowingly insulting juror 5 by saying, “The kids who crawl outa those places are real trash,” in which juror 5 replies, “ I’ve lived in a sulm all my life.” having a conflicting moment between the two. It shows how quick the juror was to judge the defendant by his living circumstances and not to understand them. Only one juror could relate and…show more content…
In the play juror 8 is the only one to vote not guilty in the start. He prevented the defendant from being sent to death without looking into the case and talking about it. If there was just the judge she could’ve sent him away for a death sentence or let him go, but it would be only her to choose which isn’t all that fair. The jury opens up the possibilities of different outlooks on the case. It makes the jurors really think about what the defendant is and what can support
Open Document