Hey Guys, Can I please have your feedback?
(I didn't write this in Exam conditions, which is why it is long)‘Twelve Angry Men is less about guilt or innocence than about reasonable doubt.’ Discuss. (2011)
Set in the summer of 1957, Reginald Rose’s widely acclaimed play “Twelve Angry Men,” depicts the broader American civilization and its varying perceptions through the medium of a judicial system. By employing the opinions of twelve individual identities in the midst of a jury room, Rose is able to present his understanding of how discrete personalities of the society relate to a scenario, and hence arrive at a “unanimous decision.” Being the architect of reasonable doubt among the Jury, Juror 8 is utilised by the playwright as a medium to highlight how jury members and symbolically the individual identities of a society respond to differing perceptions. Furthermore, it’s through reasonable doubt that Rose builds and maintains tension between his characters, hence proving reasonable doubt to be a key theme of his play. Though prevailing, the concept of reasonable doubt is not the most important aspect of “Twelve Angry Men,” yet it is only a medium through which the jurors arrive at a decision between guilty or innocent. Overall, it can be assumed that both guilt/innocence and reasonable doubt are major aspects of Rose’s play; while it is through the means of reasonable doubt that the essential beliefs and qualities of each juror emerge, it is in order to prove the defendant guilty or innocent that Rose utilises the concept of reasonable doubt itself.
As reasonable doubt evokes divergent responses from the jurors, it becomes a key aspect of Rose’s play, and his depiction of how individual identities of a society may respond to differing perceptions. Initially all alone with his individual perception of the case, it is Juror 8 who understands the gravity of the situation and that “we’re talking about somebody’s life here.” It’s for his appreciation of the jury duty that he presents reasonable doubt amongst the jury, hence becoming a reason for the extended deliberation process. Following the protagonist’s urge to deliberate, Rose utilises the “sadistic” nature of Juror 3, the “sick” attitude of Juror 10, and Juror 7’s “ignorant” persona to demonstrate their antagonistic opinions, hence how individuals of the wider society may oppose differing perceptions. Capable of judging the defendant by his own “angry, hostile” son, the third Juror’s prejudice emerges as a response to reasonable doubt. His biased disagreement to Juror 8’s reasonable doubt can be assumed as the medium through which Rose portrays how a society may be vulnerable to prejudice, and how “prejudice (may) obscure the truth.” Furthermore, following his own judgement of the “kids who crawl outa (slums),” Juror ten’s egoistic nature precipitates as a strong disagreement to any source of reasonable doubt. By utilising Juror 3’s “sick” approach towards others, Rose projects yet another understanding of the broader society’s response to differing perceptions. Accompanying the third and the tenth jurors, Juror 7’s bias against the defendant is also noticed through his disapproval to reasonable doubt; “I’m tellin’ya they’re all alike.” It is by utilising the concept of reasonable doubt within the context of the play that Rose demonstrates how individuals of a society may respond to differing opinions. Initiated by Juror 8, the concept of reasonable doubt is not necessarily appreciated by several other characters; while being a reason for highlighting their prejudice, it becomes one of the key aspects of Rose’s play.
While highlighting the prejudice of several jurors, reasonable doubt is also a medium through which Rose creates tension amongst his characters; it is through this tension that the playwright depicts how individual opinions may transpire differences in a society. Inspired by Juror 8, there are several others utilised by Rose to partake in the deliberation process. Though perceived as “stupid and unsure” by the third Juror, Juror 9 is seen to contribute his understanding of the case to the discussion, while he is accompanied by several others in doing so. By realising that they “have nothing to gain or lose by (their) verdict,” Jurors 11 and 4 are also seen to subsidize other sources of reasonable doubt from their appreciation of the case. Furthermore, while new sources of reasonable doubt attract more Jurors to the “innocent” verdict, they strengthen the essential qualities and beliefs of the antagonistic characters, such as the contradictory nature of the third and the tenth juror; “You can’t change your mind like that (for) that kids....I tell’ya he don’t even speak good English.” By showing how merely new sources of reasonable doubt transpire the true personas of several of his jurors, Rose is able to depict how new perceptions may cause differences in a society. “I’ll knock his goddam....head off.” Through the concept of reasonable doubt, Rose highlights the fact that differing opinions and thoughts are not as easily accepted by several individuals as opposed to others, and may end up creating tension amongst a society, hence causing it to remain one of the key aspects of his play.
Though a major theme of Rose’s play, reasonable doubt does not overshadow the search for a guilty or an innocent verdict, instead, it is through reasonable doubt that the playwright intends to examine every aspect of the case in order to reach a “unanimous decision.” “Suppose the kid really did knife his father;” by supposing the possibilities every outcome, there are several jurors that examine the defendant’s case in fine detail. By understanding that “it’s a very sad thing, to be nothing,” Juror 9 shares similar social experiences to the old witness, hence contributes his understanding of the witness’ testimony. Furthermore, by appreciating that “we may be wrong....maybe (the defendant) is guilty,” the eighth Juror continues to fulfil his responsibility under the Jury duty and presents possible sources of misapprehension of the case. It is through the medium of this reasonable doubt that several characters seek for a justified decision, hence proving that though a major theme of the play, reasonable doubt is mostly used as a tool to arrive the jury at a “fair” decision. While exploring the fine details of the case, there are several Jurors which contribute to the discussion, while there are others who perceive “this whole thing (as) a waste of time;” however, it is eventually through reasonable doubt that the Jury is able to sum an “innocent” verdict. Rose projects to his audience that though differing perceptions of a society may initially create tension and disagreement, it is eventually justice that overpowers antagonism; By outlining the importance of examining every detail of a situation when “talking about somebody’s life,” Rose utilises the concept of reasonable doubt merely to arrive at either a guilty or an innocent verdict.
Whilst reasonable doubt is a major theme of Rose’s “Twelve Angry Men,” it does not overshadow the importance of the final “innocent” verdict. At times, introduction of reasonable doubt amongst the jury room causes the essential beliefs and qualities of several jurors to transpire. While Juror three’s prejudice emerges as a response to the extended deliberation process which is not in his favour, Rose shows the tenth juror’s contradictory nature through his “sick” attitude. Furthermore, Juror seven’s “ignorant” persona is also seen arising as an opposition to new sources of reasonable doubt which are “a waste of (his) time.” Overall, reasonable doubt intensifies the true characters of the antagonistic jurors, while allowing Rose to portray that new perceptions and differing opinions within a society are not always easily accepted by others, and may experience obstacles before their importance is recognised. The theme of guilt/innocence is seen to be equally as important as reasonable doubt, because it is for the sake of arriving at a justified verdict that jurors, specifically eighth, ninth, fourth and eleventh, present new sources of reasonable doubt. By showing the importance of reasonable doubt as a means for bringing the jury at a fair, “unanimous decision,” Rose demonstrates the significance of a society exploring every aspect of a situation before taking decisions that may affect an individual substantially. Overall, it can be said that while reasonable doubt is a major theme of the play, it is not any more important than the concept of guilt or innocence, as the importance of both are shown by Rose to an equal extent.
Thank you again