Juror 4 In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, Juror 4 undergoes a series of questions regarding his confidence that a young man is guilty of murder. From the beginning to the end of the play, Juror 4 gradually changes his mind about his initial vote, through the constructive discussions lead by Juror 8. Juror 4 moves from a belief that all legal witnesses are faultless to truly experiencing some sort of “reasonable doubt.” He is left with a clearer picture of the case, looking beyond his personal prejudices and biases.
“In the event you find the accused guilty, the bench will not entertain a recommendation for mercy. The death sentence is mandatory in this case” (Act 1, page 6). That is the last two sentences twelve jurors record into their hearing of the Judge's voice. Once
the fate of a young man’s life is in their hands, 11 out of 12 jurors speedily vote “guilty,” persuaded the young man murdered his father. The jurors (especially Juror 3 and Juror 10) react aggressively to Juror 8’s vote. Juror 8 explains “It’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first” (Act I, page 12). From that statement, an intense conversation opens regarding the facts of the case: the two eye witnesses and the knife the boy is accused of killing his father with.
The jurors discuss the young man’s story about the knife. Juror 4 retells that the young man buys a unique knife that is identical to the one jabbed into his father’s chest. To prove his point, Juror 4 flicks open the knife of the case and jams it into the table stating the “I’ve never seen one like it” (Act I, page 23). Not surprised, Juror 8 presents an identical knife, one in which he bought from a pawn shop near the young man's house. That shatters the claim that the knife was unique. Suddenly, an argument breaks out among the jurors because of the the new doubt- most are just upset. As the play furthers, and the conversation intensifies, many of the jurors are yelling and shooting across the room. Juror 8 argues with Juror 3 why an old man could not possibly have witnessed the accused running down the hallway, while two other jurors are shooting to keep order and peace. Despite it all, Juror 4 handles himself well under the heavy atmosphere. In the play, the author describes him as a glasses wearing stockbroker, whose countenance is solemn. When conversations throughout the play are fierce, Juror 4 constantly drives the atmosphere back to the facts of the case. “Gentlemen, this case is based on a reasonable and logical progression of facts. Let’s keep it there” (Act I, page 36). Juror 4 is concerned with the rational aspects of the case and sees no need to shout to effectively get a point across. He can focus well under pressure without it affecting his physical appearance. Occasionally, Juror 4 elegantly refutes and comments upon the statements of the other men.
He believes that Juror 8 and Juror 9’s input is driven by biases that are “a bit far-fetched” (Act I, page 32). However, Juror 8, as the center of the discussion, constructively points out certain aspects of the case the makes Juror 4 skeptical about Juror 8’s statements. For example, when Juror 8 wonders how long it takes for an elevated train to pass a given point, Juror 4 inquisitively states, “All right. Say ten Seconds. What are you getting at?” (Act I, page 34). This conveys that he understands that Juror 8 has a point to make, but his intentions are not truly rational in accordance with the facts. Furthermore, Juror 4 claims “You’ve made some excellent points. The last one… was very persuasive. But I still believe the boy is guilty of murder. I have two reasons. One: the evidence given by the woman across the street who actually saw the murder committed. Two: the fact that the woman described the stabbing…” (Act II, page 66). According to Juror 4, the woman’s claim makes logical sense. Although Juror 4 is not yet convinced that the young man is not a murderer, he does value Juror 8’s
opinion.
In Act II, Juror 8 is determined to find out whether Juror 4 can “honestly” recall the recent former events of his life. From the case, Juror 4 found it odd that the young man “could not remember the movies at the theater he named” (Act II, page 56). That is because Juror 4 is convinced the young man was not at the movies that night. However, Juror 8 asks Juror 4, “Do you think you could remember details under such great emotional stress?” (Act II, page 56). With confidence, Juror 4 declares that he could. Therefore, Juror 8 consistently asks him: what did he do last night? and the night before that?, and so on. The stage directions highlight how Juror 4 was “trying to remember...straining” to recall those memories he undoubtedly said he remembers. Juror 4 is not under a great emotional stress as the boy. Ultimately, the author conveys that viewing a situation from a divergent lens leaves room for some doubt. Rose utilizes Juror 4’s experience as one to validate that as humans, we sometimes encounter situations that can impact our responses or affect our thoughts. As the end of the play approaches, Juror 8 wants to know why after all the evidence presented against the belief that the young man is guilty, why is he convinced that the young man committed the murder. Juror 4 responds, “...and she could look out while lying down and see directly into the boy’s window across the tracks” (Act II, page 66). He recalls how the woman can clearly see what happened late night. Juror 4 has complete trust that the woman truly witnessed what she saw. Besides, how could one lie if they seen it with their own eyes? “She got a good look” (Act II, page 67) at the boy in the act of stabbing. However, Juror 9 notices that the woman who testified in court, she has the same deep marks on the sides of her nose as Juror 4 does. Those marks can come from nothing other eyeglasses. Juror 4 confirms that “No one wears eye glasses to bed” (Act II, page 70). Therefore, Juror 9 inquires how could the woman clearly witness something if she was in bed. Juror 4 agrees and finally changes his vote to “not guilty.”
It is safe to conclude that the idea of bias and prejudices is still evident in society today. Among the Republican candidates, Donald Trump’s desire to ban all Muslims from immigrating or visiting the United States, is feed of a prejudice against Muslims. There is a lot of bias in the mass media. Plus over the years as a high school student, I have submitted unintentional biased papers. This just demonstrates our natural tendency as humans to add our input wherever it fits.
Ultimately, Juror 4 was questioned to a reasonable doubt. Juror 4 is tested as he proves why he holds a strong belief that the young man is blameworthy. Juror 4 had to acknowledge that his initial belief in the guilt of a young man is not truly believes. However, we never know if the accused was blameworthy or blameless. The doubt lies within the minds of the jurors and the audience of the suspenseful play.