Justice Vs. Truth In Twelve Angry Men

Twelve Angry Men – Essay 1 “Twelve Angry Men” asserts that justice is far more important than truth. Do you agree? In Reginald Rose’s gripping play, “Twelve Angry Men” the assumption that justice is more important than the truth is explored. The play illustrates the necessity to eliminate all preconceived ideas when deciding a verdict based on the standard of proof, ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Antagonists, jurors 3 and 10 find it almost impossible to administer justice fairly as they are too bound up on their own personal prejudice towards the defendant. Juror 8’s ability to dig below the surface of what seems to be a decisive case exposes flaws in the witnesses’ testimonies and other admissible evidence, ultimately
Jurors 9 and 11 are crucial in supporting juror 8’s quest for justice. Juror 8 is able to acknowledge that the real truth may never be known, but he would rather, if there was any doubt, see a guilty man live rather than an innocent man die. Juror 8’s calm, reasoned delivery of facts and his ability to refute some of the evidence means that other jurors start to realise that a fair verdict means letting go of their preconceived notions and prejudices about the defendant and his background, ‘No one can really know, but we have reasonable doubt, and this is a safeguard that has enormous value in our system’. Like juror 3, Juror 9 is able to view the defendant objectively without letting prejudice cloud his judgement, ‘I don’t think the kind of boy he is has anything to do with it’. Juror 11 takes a similar rational and sensible approach to the likes of jurors 8 and 9 establishing that he is ‘simply asking questions’ and that ‘we [meaning the jurors] have a responsibility’ to uphold, not abuse. Juror 3’s blinded focus on discovering the truth (manipulated by his predetermined ideas) restricts him from passing a fair verdict on the defendant. Juror 3’s overlook of the case is tarnished as he mirrors his broken relationship with his son to the defendants and