Juror 8 In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

Reginald Rose's play, Twelve Angry Men, takes place in the 'jury-room of the New York Court of Law' in 1957, and explores how the persistence and determination of juror 8 eventually influences the other jurors into changing their minds about the verdict. Juror 8, the protagonist of the play, continually questions the veracity of the evidence in order to persuade other jurors to think about reasonable doubt. He goes out of his way to attempt to make other jurors deliberate about the murder. Even though the 8th juror broke the law by submitting the ‘one of a kind’ switchblade knife in the jury room the evidence was put into good hands and became a positive element towards the end of the play. The 8th Jurors intellectuality of twisting facts around is an important component that tests the
Throughout the play he questions the evidence to force the other jurors to think about whether there is any reasonable doubt to vote not guilty. At every opportunity he uses reason and logic to attempt to make the other jurors think about the validity of the evidence. By forcing the trial to continue, this makes the other jurors think about the case and they use their own theories to attempt to make the child “Not Guilty”. As juror 8 states “As far as I know, we’re supposed to decide whether or not the boy on trial is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. We’re not concerned with anyone else’s motives here”. Through the words of juror 8 we can sense the determination from him to discover whether or not the boy is “not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.” He brings his own ideas and does this by fighting against the flawed testimonies of the witnesses. With the many different attitudes of the jurors, this is an appropriate method of persuading as it engages the other jurors to deliberate and discuss without forcing them