Twelve Angry Men- Rose Uses the Jurors to Show the Conflict Between Right and Wrong in Twelve Angry Men. Discuss Essay Example
In the play Twelve Angry Men, the playwright Reginald Rose demonstrates through the characters of the jury the conflict between right and wrong and what can come from that conflict. The play was set in the 1950’s, when only men were chosen to be a part of a jury. Rose intentionally creates the characters of the jury to have contradicting values to show how conflict is often necessary before justice can be served. The only way to give the accused a fair trial is if there is conflict occurring between right and wrong between jurors. Each juror has their own pre-conceived ideas about right and wrong considering it was in the 1950’s. Juror 8 believes the accused has a right to a fair trial; this creates the initial conflict. Conflict is necessary to ensure the right thing is done, which in this case is that the defendant was given a fair hearing. The judge states that “if there’s any reasonable doubt then you must bring me a verdict of not-guilty”. Juror 8 has reasonable doubt and elaborates it to the jury; however some juror’s thoughts are blinded by their prejudice and personal experiences. Reginald Rose displays the conflict that can occur when decisions are being made using the jurors in Twelve Angry Men.
In order for justice to be served discussion must take place, and juror 8 seems to be the only juror who understands the enormity of the situation. From the very beginning Juror 8 realises how serious his role is being a part of a jury; therefore he understands that voting guilty could potentially end a young man’s life. He believes that the accused’s trial deserves some discussion, “it’s just that were talking about someone’s life here. I mean suppose we’re wrong?” Juror 8 is the only character who initially brings reason and logic into the jury room, not prejudice. The other jurors however came into the room filled with prejudice and others were wrapped in their own personal experiences. This is how the conflict starts. Juror 8 understands he must convince the
In order for justice to be served discussion must take place, and juror 8 seems to be the only juror who understands the enormity of the situation. From the very beginning Juror 8 realises how serious his role is being a part of a jury; therefore he understands that voting guilty could potentially end a young man’s life. He believes that the accused’s trial deserves some discussion, “it’s just that were talking about someone’s life here. I mean suppose we’re wrong?” Juror 8 is the only character who initially brings reason and logic into the jury room, not prejudice. The other jurors however came into the room filled with prejudice and others were wrapped in their own personal experiences. This is how the conflict starts. Juror 8 understands he must convince the