Twelve Angry Men - Prejudice

1950s America saw the nation fall into a period of national tension and idealogical turmoil following the McCarthy Trials and the Cold War, which produced a flourish of works such as Regnald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men.’ Using a jury of twelve anonymous men, the play scrutinizes both the strengths and flaws of the American judicial system. The case of a fictional “delinquent” who faces capitol punishment under charges of patricide acts as a vehicle to examine the moral dilemma of prejudice and judgement, and its importance, underpinning American jury rooms in a time of profound social division. Through his structuring and characterizations, Rose does not merely attack the system, but contends is functionality stems from the very individuals within it, and their ability to see with objectivity and compassion.

The New York skyline lying in the back of the room, and the very sparseness of the setting offers a constant reminder of the significance these characters play, not as individuals, but as representations of wider social groups of 20th century America. This is used by Rose to mimic the social division of American society, scrutinizing its effects on its citizens. The fate of the young and “dangerous killer” appears predetermined from the beginning, as eleven of the jurors are already convinced of his guilt, and believe he “knifed his own father.” In particular, it is the 3rd Juror who epitomizes the notion of unjust judgement, as a consequence of his experiences and beliefs. Constantly upholding the proceedings of the case and undermining other jurors, he is determined to see his ill-founded criticisms put into practice and have the defendant prosecuted, expressing “we’d be better off if we took these tough kids and slapped ‘em down before they make trouble.” It is evident from this statement that he holds very little regard for human life and he is unable to see the truth objectively. This inability to divorce personal pain from the cathartic decisions he