12 Angry Men Influence
Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a play about a jury consisting of twelve men trying to decide whether a boy accused of murder is guilty or innocent. Each juror has their own past experiences, each with their own influence. However, some jurors bring up their pasts during the case. That is because a man’s experiences have a profound effect on the way he thinks and acts. Beneficial or not, Jurors Three and Eleven’s pasts affect not only the way they act, but the way the rest of the jurors act throughout the deliberation process as well. Juror Three’s past negatively influences him to vote guilty despite all the evidence pointing to an acquittal. In Act One, Juror Three talks about his bitterness towards “tough kids”. He goes on and on
about his son and his negative experiences with him. Juror Three’s rant becomes very personal when he begins using phrases such as “so ashamed” and “you work your heart out!” (I, 21). Juror Three is clearly affected by his past. His breakdown shows he is taking out his hatred for “tough kids” on the defendant. Juror Three’s guilty vote is based solely on the resentment towards his problematic son. Later in the play, Three yells, “[The defendant] is guilty! He’s got to burn!” (II, 42) revealing that his opinion about the defendant is biased, and his sadism is based on resentment. Juror Three’s credibility comes into question. In Act Three, as Juror Eight brings up more compelling arguments, Juror Three has to rely on Four for his reasoning. Three, when referring to Four, uses phrases such as “Good. Good. That’s it. That’s it” (III, 49). Meanwhile, Juror Three does not give solid reasons as to why he thinks the boy guilty. After Four changes his mind about the innocence of the boy, Juror Three no longer has anyone to rely on. When Eight confronts Three about his arguments, Three says, “A guilty man’s going to be walking the streets. A murderer! He’s got to die!” (III, 62). Three does not base his vote on real evidence. He has a hard time shaking his resentment. While Juror Three’s past negatively affects the deliberation process, another juror’s past positively affects it. The complete opposite of Three is Juror Eleven. He is from Europe, and now lives in the United States. He had to escape Europe as a refugee, but “he will honestly seek justice because he suffered through so much injustice” (5). Because of his past, he is determined to make sure the boy is given a chance. In Act Three, Juror Eleven talks about how great the innate randomness of the jury is. Juror Eleven plays a key role in the jury. After Three’s outburst, Eleven is forced to remind the jury they were picked because of their disassociation with the case. Eleven says the diversity of the jury “is one of the reasons [the jury] is strong. [The jury] should not make it such a personal thing” (III, 45). He wants to make sure the jury is taking the case as seriously as possible. Because Juror Three takes the case so personally, Juror Eleven has to remind the jury that that they were picked is because they have no connection to the case. He wants the boy to be fairly judged, but Eleven must also correct those who are ignorant, making him a valuable asset to the jury and showing how his past affects the deliberation process. A person’s actions are often due to their past experiences. Whereas Juror Three’s troubled past with his son influences his vote and the way he sees the defendant, Juror Eleven’s life of injustice drives him to make sure the boy receives the justice he deserves. Both of these men are influenced by their pasts, and it affects the deliberation process both positively and negatively. Everyone’s past influences the way they act, and there is no way to combat that. Jurors Three and Eleven show two different sides of the spectrum. One helps the process, while the other ends up hampering it. The court system must understand all people are secretly influenced by their experiences. Hopefully, there will always be someone influential on the jury like Juror Eleven, whose past benefits the case.
about his son and his negative experiences with him. Juror Three’s rant becomes very personal when he begins using phrases such as “so ashamed” and “you work your heart out!” (I, 21). Juror Three is clearly affected by his past. His breakdown shows he is taking out his hatred for “tough kids” on the defendant. Juror Three’s guilty vote is based solely on the resentment towards his problematic son. Later in the play, Three yells, “[The defendant] is guilty! He’s got to burn!” (II, 42) revealing that his opinion about the defendant is biased, and his sadism is based on resentment. Juror Three’s credibility comes into question. In Act Three, as Juror Eight brings up more compelling arguments, Juror Three has to rely on Four for his reasoning. Three, when referring to Four, uses phrases such as “Good. Good. That’s it. That’s it” (III, 49). Meanwhile, Juror Three does not give solid reasons as to why he thinks the boy guilty. After Four changes his mind about the innocence of the boy, Juror Three no longer has anyone to rely on. When Eight confronts Three about his arguments, Three says, “A guilty man’s going to be walking the streets. A murderer! He’s got to die!” (III, 62). Three does not base his vote on real evidence. He has a hard time shaking his resentment. While Juror Three’s past negatively affects the deliberation process, another juror’s past positively affects it. The complete opposite of Three is Juror Eleven. He is from Europe, and now lives in the United States. He had to escape Europe as a refugee, but “he will honestly seek justice because he suffered through so much injustice” (5). Because of his past, he is determined to make sure the boy is given a chance. In Act Three, Juror Eleven talks about how great the innate randomness of the jury is. Juror Eleven plays a key role in the jury. After Three’s outburst, Eleven is forced to remind the jury they were picked because of their disassociation with the case. Eleven says the diversity of the jury “is one of the reasons [the jury] is strong. [The jury] should not make it such a personal thing” (III, 45). He wants to make sure the jury is taking the case as seriously as possible. Because Juror Three takes the case so personally, Juror Eleven has to remind the jury that that they were picked is because they have no connection to the case. He wants the boy to be fairly judged, but Eleven must also correct those who are ignorant, making him a valuable asset to the jury and showing how his past affects the deliberation process. A person’s actions are often due to their past experiences. Whereas Juror Three’s troubled past with his son influences his vote and the way he sees the defendant, Juror Eleven’s life of injustice drives him to make sure the boy receives the justice he deserves. Both of these men are influenced by their pasts, and it affects the deliberation process both positively and negatively. Everyone’s past influences the way they act, and there is no way to combat that. Jurors Three and Eleven show two different sides of the spectrum. One helps the process, while the other ends up hampering it. The court system must understand all people are secretly influenced by their experiences. Hopefully, there will always be someone influential on the jury like Juror Eleven, whose past benefits the case.