Explain How The Jurors Separate The Facts From The Fancy

Topic: The judge tells the jurors it is their ‘duty to try and separate that the facts from the fancy’. How do the jurors separate the facts from the fancy?
‘Twelve Angry Men’ is a drama play written by Regional Rose in 1954 which was set in a jury-room of a New York Court of Law, 1957 during a very hot summer afternoon. The jurors are asked to come up with a verdict whether the boys are guilty or not. The judge states: “You’ve listened to the testimony and you’ve had the law read to you and interpreted as it applies to this case. It now becomes your duty to separate the facts from the fancy.” Duty is something you have to do. Fancy is an idea or opinion that is not based on facts. So, in other words, the jurors have to sit down and decide what is true and what is not true. Throughout the play, Juror 8
patiently and courageously convinces the majority he has to oppose at the start to change their vote and is able to identify the ‘fancy’ and the ‘facts’.
However, there is Juror 4, a stock broker who appears to be a very mentally tough man, who only cares about facts, has no sense of consideration along with the likes of Juror 3, Juror 7 or 12 who absolutely show no interest in either ‘fancy’ or ‘facts’. They basically just pick their vote based on personal emotions or don’t take any responsibilities at all.
The play starts off with a vote conducted by Juror 1, also known as the Foreman. Eleven vote not guilty yet Juror 8 bravely chooses to go against the rest. He is the first one who brings up the idea of ‘fancy’ through the explanation of his reasonable doubts such as the knife, the el train, the amount of time the old man takes, the woman across the
street, the glasses. However, they maybe or are not real, they’re just assumptions, they represent the fancy. However, he does not actively uses all these evidences to persuade the other that the defendant is not guilty, “I’m not trying to change your mind”, the fact that he really understands ‘the boy may die’. His main focus is to ensure that the men truly understand the reason they are present here for and also to make sure the jury system works the way it should. Intentionally or not, he leads the jurors to the analysis of testimony presented in the courtroom. For the ‘facts’ part, he raised the issue of the boy’s age, “He’s sixteen years old and the reality that he has been domestically bullied by his father, the victim, “Ever since he was five years old his father beat him up regularly. He used his fists.” These are proved to be facts and no one considers them. However, he is also aware that the way he observes the case can be wrong, maybe the truth is the boy really did killed his father, “I don’t really know what the truth is. No one ever will, I suppose.” Juror 8 is a thoughtful and fearless man who sees all sides of the question and will keep seeking for the truth no matter what it takes therefore he is successful in separating the obvious and the imagination to help the men reveal their point of view.
On the opposite, Juror 3 stands out as a highly volatile and conservative man who is described as ‘a sadist’. His lack of responsibility and justice is in contrast with Juror 8. He seeks a guilty verdict because he can see himself through the victim’s situation after an unhappy relationship with his son. He constantly grumbles about teenagers’’ behaviours and believes that ‘we’d better off if we took these tough kids and slapped’em down before they make trouble’ and shows his simplicity about the case, “We’re trying to put a guilty man into the chair where he belongs.” Unlike Juror 3, Juror 7 and 3 do not have any father-son tragedy but Juror 7 is desperate to reach for a verdict so he can go to a baseball game. However, he has a sense of humour to calm down the tension and shows himself being very socialable to others. Meanwhile, Juror 12 often finds it hard to choose what side to be on; displaying the lack of strong and brave personality, as he somewhat reflects America’s post-war materialism.
On the other hand, “based on a reasonable and logical progression of facts” Juror 4 shows little sights of emotional changes, remains calm and focused on the debate instead. With his robot-like way of thinking, he denies all the possibilities Juror 8 brings up and keeps reminding the rest that ‘We’re here to decide where he’s guilty or innocent of murder, not go into reason why he grew up this way. He seems to be more educated and knowledgeable than the rest. Nevertheless, he is eventually convinced by the woman’s glasses evidence after failing to remember the name of the movie he’s seen. He is defeated at his own game of logics and facts.
In conclusion, twelve jurors has gone through a longer process than they expected but they did not lose or gain anything out of it because “this isn’t a game”, Juror 8 states. ‘Fancy’ and ‘facts’ should be considered and examined carefully as a person’ life should be taken seriously. Most of the jurors handle themselves well and come out learning more experience from the incident.