[12 Angry Men] Text Response

[auds]

Any feedback on this essay would be much appreciated ! It wasn't written in exact exam conditions, as I wanted to focus a bit more on finishing the essay and trying to put in my ideas.

In Twelve Angry Men, Roes highlights the flaws of a criminal justice system which relies on the judgement of twelve individuals. Discuss.

Set against the backdrop of Senator McCarty’s anti-Communist witch-hunts in 1950s America, Twelve Angry Men explores the need for a fair and equitable trial in the midst of a Capitalist democracy. Reginald Rose’s play explores the notion of the criminal justice system, and the purported justice in the verdicts it gives as they are dependent upon the votes of twelve different individuals. In some ways, the jury system is flawed as it incorporates individuals who are disinterested in the case and fulfilling their civic responsibility, thereby criticising the superficiality of the 1950s American society which was shifting towards consumerism. Furthermore, Rose shows that another weakness of the criminal justice system is the inevitable personal biases and prejudices that different jurors bring into the room,  clouding their judgement in the same way discrimination has distorted the views of many Americans. Ultimately, Rose vindicates and praises the jury system as it reaches a just verdict, through the opinion of Juror 8, and the other weaker jurors, highlighting the potential in American society for justice and equity. Hence, Twelve Angry Men’s jury system acts as a microcosm of American society, to show that while there will always be flaws within the system, justice will prevail and the fairest outcome will be reached.

One of the jury system’s flaws is its admission of those who lack interest, or do not take their social responsibility seriously. Rose warns that when people are tasked with something they do not want, they will perform poorly, and allow the possibility of injustice to occur. From the outset, Juror 12 establishes himself as a superficial individual who found the case “held a lot of interest for me”, with no “dead spots”. In the same way he has “lived here all my life and never been [in the Woolworth building]”, Juror 12 only considers the façade of the case, rather than the contents, and its details. The unreliability of his judgement is also depicted as he “bounces round like a tennis ball” and changes his vote according to the shift in power. Similarly, the Foreman’s outburst and assertion that “I don’t care anymore, you can do whatever you want” shows that he does not take his duty seriously as he is willing to hand over his additional role as Foreman to another juror. He also becomes more concerned with asserting his waning leadership rather than the discussion, as he contributes little yet attempts to gain control of the room. Like the Foreman, Juror 7, with whom he is seated directly opposite, “glances at the clock” repeatedly because he sees the deliberation as a “Goddamn waste of time”. Showcasing his self-interest as he cares more for the “baseball tickets burning a hole in his pocket”, Rose calls into question this juror’s ability to pass a fair judgement. All three jurors symbolise America’s shift in values from character to consumerism and self-interest, therefore criticising their right to pass judgement. Hence, these jurors are used by Rose to depict the flaws of a legal system which allows with no interest or sense of responsibility to judge the case.

Furthermore, Rose shows that within the jury, there will be individuals who draw on their own personal experiences and biases, thereby questioning the objectivity of their judgement. Rather than voting based on the notion of “reasonable doubt”, they vote according to their beliefs and feelings. Juror 3’s dysfunctional relationship with his son means he views the defendant as part of the general demographic of “Angry! Hostile!” youths. He chooses to condemn the defendant as a means to vicariously punish his son, referring to both as a “rotten kid” and later empathising with the victim as “I can feel the knife going in”. Similarly, Juror 10 displays the frightening power of discrimination as he views the defendant not as an individual, but as a representation of the slum-dwellers he despises. The hot weather and his cold only exacerbate the frustrations and feelings of bigotry, as he calls them “liars” and “trash”. Both jurors display a consistent inconsistency in logic, as Juror 3 claims “we can throw out all the other evidence” before later utilising it to attempt to prove a point; on the other hand, Juror 10 denigrates the prosecuting attorney as the “fifteenth assistant or something” after using the man’s evidence as proof. Interestingly, Juror 4, whom is “seated across Juror 10”, epitomizes logic and reason, a polar opposite of Juror 10 the “ignorant man”, yet remains prejudiced toward the boy as “we all know the slums are breeding grounds for criminals”. While Juror 3 is used to question the flaws in allowing those with negative personal experience to pass judgement, Juror 10 and Juror 4 together show how prejudice is prevalent in all factions of society, extending to a criticism of the Communist fears of the time, which were everywhere. Thus, Rose emphasizes that reliability upon individuals’ judgements allows bias to cloud the vote.

On the other hand, the fact that the “not guilty” unanimous verdict is delivered, redeems the use of the jurors’ judgement as the just outcome has been reached. It has meant different jurors can decide for themselves the boy’s guilt, and come together to share their different judgements. The use of the “scarred table” acts as an extended metaphor that celebrates the long-standing tradition of the jury system since its conception, as the table has remained a fixed item within the jury room. At a deeper reading, the table shows that a just outcome will always be reached, as long as heated deliberations are held, as evidenced by the “scarring”. Furthermore, as a microcosm of society, the jury contains a cross-section of society, as jurors come from all walks of life and contribute their different experiences. Juror 8 identifies the “reasonable doubt” within the case, systematically deconstructing the evidence as he can see the ‘bigger picture’ symbolic in stage directions where he “stands back watching the others” and is an architect by profession.  Rose celebrates Juror 8’s judgement as he has allowed a possibly innocent man to escape the death sentence. Juror 8 also draws in the judgements of the different jurors, when Juror 9 asserts the elderly witness “made himself believe he’d heard the voice” and Juror 5 acknowledges that “with [the defendant’s] experience, I don’t think he could have made that kind of stab wound”. Here, Rose affirms that it is only through the process of judging together, can a just outcome be reached. This is symbolised through the skyline, consisting of an array of high-rise buildings modelling success, because it shows what people can achieve when they work together. Therefore, Rose shows that drawing on the judgement of twelve different jurors is actually a strength of the legal system, as it is the best way to produce the fairest outcome.

Hence, while Rose criticises some aspects of the jury system because of its reliance on a unanimous verdict from its jurymen, ultimately he celebrates this as a strength of the jury system. As it draws upon individuals from all parts of society, it is inevitable that some people will come with disinterest in the case, self-interest, and a lack of social responsibility, or may carry with them their own bias and prejudice. However, as long as there are people who are adamant on “separating the fact from the fancy”, a sound judgement will be passed. Rose utilises Twelve Angry Men to send the message that in spite of America’s leaning toward consumerism and Communist paranoia, the society will always have the potential to produce fairness and equity.

[24bauer12]

Hi Auds,


In Twelve Angry Men, Roes highlights the flaws of a criminal justice system which relies on the judgement of twelve individuals. Discuss.

Set against the backdrop of Senator McCarty’sIt is good you are mentioning McCarthyism; however, it may be more prudent to examine the text as a social commentary as this is at the forefront of Rose's intentions. anti-Communist witch-hunts in 1950s America, Twelve Angry MenItalicize or underline explores the need for a fair and equitable trial in the midst of a Capitalist democracy.The notion of capitalism is probably not pertinent; the historical background should augment your writing and be relevant to the prompt. You may want to mention the severe anti-communist propaganda promoted by the Republicans and the American government. This is not a history essay; while talking about witch-hunts and capitalism is interesting they do not add to your analysis. However, your discussion of McCarthyism adds to your argument. Why is Capitalist capitalised. which permeated American society. Reginald Rose’s play explores the notion of the criminal justice system, and the purported justice in the verdicts it gives as they are dependent upon the votes of twelve different individuals. In some ways, the jury system is flawed as it incorporates individuals who are disinterested in the case and fulfilling their civic responsibility, thereby criticising the superficiality of the 1950s American society which was shifting towards consumerism. Furthermore, Rose shows that another weakness of the criminal justice system is the inevitable personal biases and prejudices that different jurors bring into the room,  clouding their judgement in the same way discrimination has distorted the views of many Americans. Ultimately, Rose vindicates and praises the jury system as it reaches a just verdict, through the opinion of Juror 8I think you should mention Rose's characterisation of the protagonist as a representation of an idyllic individual., and the other weaker jurors, highlighting the potential in American society for justice and equity. Hence, Twelve Angry Men’s jury system acts as a microcosm of American society, to show that while there will always be flaws within the system, justice will prevail and the fairest outcome will be reached.Good thesis statement

One of the jury system’s flaws is its admission of those who lack interest, or do not take their social responsibility seriouslyTalk about the author's intention in your T.P; this is purely summary.. Rose warns that when people are tasked with something they do not want, they will perform poorly, and allow the possibility of injustice to occur. From the outset, Juror 12 establishes himself as a superficial individual who found the case “held a lot of interest for me”, with no “dead spots”. In the same way he has “lived here all my life and never been [in the Woolworth building]”, Juror 12 only considers the façade of the case, rather than the content, and its details. The unreliability of his judgement is also depicted as he “bounces round like a tennis ball”You could get so much more analysis out of this!You could talk about his approaching of the case on a visceral level.Also, consider the notion of metonymy. and changes his vote according to the shift in power. Similarly, the Foreman’s outburst and assertion that “I don’t care anymore, you can do whatever you want” shows that he does not take his duty seriously as he is willing to hand over his additional role as Foreman to another juror. He also becomes more concerned with asserting his waning leadership rather than the discussion, as he contributes little yet attempts to gain control of the room. Like the Foreman, Juror 7, with whom he is seated directly opposite, “glances at the clock” repeatedly because he sees the deliberation as a “Goddamn waste of time”Consider the frivolity and petulance of this juror.Another useful phrase is deriliction of duty.. Showcasing his self-interest as he cares more for the “baseball tickets burning a hole in his pocket”, Rose calls into question this juror’s ability to pass a fair judgement. All three jurors symbolise America’s shift in values from character to consumerism and self-interest, therefore criticising their right to pass judgement. Hence, these jurors are used by Rose to depict the flaws of a legal system which allows with no interest or sense of responsibility to judge the case.This is a good point but it could be made more succinctly.Additionally, consider being more selective in your use of quotations.

Furthermore, Rose shows that within the jury, there will be individuals who draw on their own personal experiences and biases, thereby questioning the objectivity of their judgement. Rather than voting based on the notion of “reasonable doubt”, they vote according to their beliefs and feelings.This is just pure retelling. Juror 3’s dysfunctional relationship with his son means he views the defendant as part of the general demographic of “Angry! Hostile!” youths. He chooses to condemn the defendant as a means to vicariously punish his son, referring to both as a “rotten kid” and later empathising with the victim as “I can feel the knife going in”. Similarly, Juror 10 displays the frightening power of discrimination as he views the defendant not as an individual, but as a representation of the slum-dwellers he despises. The hot weather and his cold only exacerbate the frustrations and feelings of bigotry, as he calls them “liars” and “trash”. Both jurors display a consistent inconsistency in logic, as Juror 3 claims “we can throw out all the other evidence” before later utilising it to attempt to prove a point; on the other hand, Juror 10 denigrates the prosecuting attorney as the “fifteenth assistant or something” after using the man’s evidence as proof. Interestingly, Juror 4, whom is “seated across Juror 10”, epitomizes logic and reason, a polar opposite of Juror 10 the “ignorant man”, yet remains prejudiced toward the boy as “we all know the slums are breeding grounds for criminals”. While Juror 3 is used to question the flaws in allowing those with negative personal experience to pass judgement, Juror 10 and Juror 4 together show how prejudice is prevalent in all factions of society, extending to a criticism of the Communist fears of the time, which were everywhereOmnipresent is a better way of saying this; however I am not certain the assertion you made is true.. Thus, Rose emphasizes that reliability upon individuals’ judgements allows bias to cloud the vote.Much of the paragraph is merely retelling

On the other hand, the fact that the “not guilty” unanimous verdict is delivered, redeems the use of the jurors’ judgement as the just outcome has been reached. Don't start a sentence with the word 'it'.It has meant different jurors can decide for themselves the boy’s guilt, and come together to share their different judgements. The use of the “scarred table” acts as an extended metaphor that celebrates the long-standing tradition of the jury system since its conception, as the table has remained a fixed item within the jury room. At a deeper reading, the table shows that a just outcome will always be reached, as long as heated deliberations are held, as evidenced by the “scarring”. Furthermore, as a microcosm of society, the jury contains a cross-section of society, as jurors come from all walks of life and contribute their different experiences. Juror 8 identifies the “reasonable doubt” within the case, systematically deconstructing the evidence as he can see the ‘bigger picture’ symbolic in stage directions where he “stands back watching the others” and is an architect by profession.  Rose celebrates Juror 8’s judgement as he has allowed a possibly innocent man to escape the death sentenceRetelling. Juror 8 also draws in the judgements of the different jurors, when Juror 9 asserts the elderly witness “made himself believe he’d heard the voice” and Juror 5 acknowledges that “with [the defendant’s] experience, I don’t think he could have made that kind of stab wound”This is long turgid quoting which certainly does not add anything to your essay.. Here, Rose affirms that it is only through the process of judging together, can a just outcome be reached. This is symbolised through the skyline, consisting of an array of high-rise buildings modelling success, because it shows what people can achieve when they work together. Therefore, Rose shows that drawing on the judgement of twelve different jurors is actually a strength of the legal system, as it is the best way to produce the fairest outcome.

Hence, while Rose criticises some aspects of the jury system because of its reliance on a unanimous verdict from its jurymen, ultimately he celebrates this as a strength of the jury system. As it draws upon individuals from all parts of society, it is inevitable that some people will come with disinterest in the case, self-interest, and a lack of social responsibility, or may carry with them their own bias and prejudice. However, as long as there are people who are adamant on “separating the fact from the fancy”, a sound judgement will be passed. Rose utilises Twelve Angry Men to send the message that in spite of America’s leaning toward consumerism and Communist paranoia, the society will always have the potential to produce fairness and equity.Writing your conclusion as a conclusively sounding intro isn't conducive to acquiring the higher marks. I recommend commenting on historical context, how the interpretation of the play can change over time or something about authorial construction.

I am rather concerned about your phraseology and your tendency to weave between past and present tense.Also, I recommend removing the word 'because' from your text response lexicon; your job is to analyse the text not to be too rigidly diagnostic about interpretations. Your sentences are also clunky at times. The vocabulary could also be improved; consider using words like:fallacious propaganda,pragmatism, jaundiced justice system, intolerant zeitgeist and the author's precise characterisation of the juror's. Work on your syntactical construction of sentences. However, these are really minor issues. The biggest issue is your retelling of the play and the lack of analysis. Try to move beyond schematic interpretations. Consider the text as a construct; don't just refer to the events and characters as real. They are the product of Rose's precise delineation of the characters. Your assessor has read the play and does not need a recap of it. A good way of ameliorating the retelling issue is to focus more on metalanguage, symbolism and stage directions, as this allows you refer to authorial intent. If you want to receive the higher marks you should include a more selective selection of evidence which demonstrates a close and perceptive reading of the text.As aforementioned, you should analyse literary techniques as this is more conducive to sophisticated discussion.
I hope my feedback isn't overly acerbic; I am just picking up on minor shortcomings.

[auds]

I am rather concerned about your phraseology and your tendency to weave between past and present tense.Also, I recommend removing the word 'because' from your text response lexicon; your job is to analyse the text not to be too rigidly diagnostic about interpretations. Your sentences are also clunky at times. The vocabulary could also be improved; consider using words like:fallacious propaganda,pragmatism, jaundiced justice system, intolerant zeitgeist and the author's precise characterisation of the juror's. Work on your syntactical construction of sentences. However, these are really minor issues. The biggest issue is your retelling of the play and the lack of analysis. Try to move beyond schematic interpretations. Consider the text as a construct; don't just refer to the events and characters as real. They are the product of Rose's precise delineation of the characters. Your assessor has read the play and does not need a recap of it. A good way of ameliorating the retelling issue is to focus more on metalanguage, symbolism and stage directions, as this allows you refer to authorial intent. If you want to receive the higher marks you should include a more selective selection of evidence which demonstrates a close and perceptive reading of the text.As aforementioned, you should analyse literary techniques as this is more conducive to sophisticated discussion.
I hope my feedback isn't overly acerbic; I am just picking up on minor shortcomings.

Thank you for this, really helps me pinpoint what I need to work on