Fallacies In 12 Angry Men, By Reginald Rose

Fallacies In 12 Angry Men, By Reginald Rose
In the play 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose there are many fallacies that shape the deliberations of the case. One of the most important
elements of the play is the relationship between Juror 3, Juror 8 and Juror 10 at times. The constant conflict between the jurors is the main drive of the
drama. Juror 10 was bitter and prejudice right from the start, it was not until Act III when he unleashes his bigotry. Juror 3 was always the antagonist
from the beginning, he is quick to lose his temper with number 8 and the rest of the jury at times. During Act III he reveals his emotional baggage
about his poor relationship with his own son that may have caused his biased views. Each juror votes guilty all except one, Juror 8, but by using critical
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
More logical reasoning was brought to attention but racism was not shut down. Juror 10 continues to tell people how the color of his skin effects the
outcome of the case. After hearing the count of the votes he is furious, and begins to tell the jury about how the kid should be guilty. He continues to
mention to them that the defendant is "one of 'em" therefore he should automatically be guilty. Although it has no connection to the case, Juror 10
says I'm speaking my piece, and you listen to me! They're no good. There's not a one of 'em who's any good. We better watch out. Take it from me.
This kid on trial...." (Rose. 27) When he says this he proves to the other jurors that he is not paying attention to the facts just the color of his skin,
which leads to his vote being guilty. He wants to try and get the rest of the jury to change their vote back because he knows the defendant is not guilty,
but because of the color of race he should
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Guilt In Twelve Angry Men, By Reginald Rose
Imagine this, you're being taken to jail for a crime you supposedly did, although you actually had nothing to do with it. The next day you have a
trial, but The jurors that are there care less about who you are. The trial goes up to three days, finally the jurors discuss the case and come up to a
decision, however it isn't what you had expected. You're accused guilty for a crime you didn't commit and now you have to deal with the
consequences, what perhaps could have gone wrong in this case? Could it have been that someone set you up, then again could it have been that the
jurors in the trial just rushed since they didn't actually care from the start? "Twelve Angry Men", a play about a trial in which a teenager is being
accused guilty in the murder of his own father while his case is being reviewed by the jurors. Throughout the play Reginald Rose, the author, shows
us that not every trial that is held is actually always a fair trial. This play that was written is a good example of a trial being treated unfairly by the
jurors, although at the end the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
"... the verdict must be unanimous", this was what begun the whole conflict in the play from the start. The case had no solution if the men were to be
differently minded about the situation, the thing the stands out most is it was eleven against one. Only one juror out of all twelve wanted to take
time on the case and find a better solution for the case, unlike the others. The quote, "This better be fast I've got tickets to The Seven Year Itch
tonight", shows us that the jurors dislike being there. They prefer being in places where it's less beneficial, but fun, they care less about the boy they
just want to go home that's all if it was allowed they'd just leave without any doubt in their mind. Its nuts the way that these judges acted and how bad
their personalities

Stereotypes In Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose
Twelve Angry Men In the text Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the jury began as uncooperative and evolved into a more agreeable jury by
the end. The jury started in a state of contradiction and an inability to cooperate. Most jurors only cared to listen to themselves and just wanted to
bully other jurors into agreeing with them. They were in a hurry to get out of the deliberation room and just wanted to be done with this case as we
can see when Seven said to Ten that "this better be fast" (Rose 88). He just wanted to leave so he could watch a theatrical performance. This proves
how little this case meant to him and several other jurors. You can see how they disregard evidence for stereotypes when Ten explained the defendant's
supposed lie by saying that the jury "know[s] how [these] people lie... [and] don't need any real big reason to kill someone either" (Rose 106). He
believed that just because the kid was raised in a slum, he would lie and kill ruthlessly. He didn't believe anyone raised in the slums was above
murder and lying. The early jury was a disaster and a disgrace to the justice system, but they slowly began to redeem themselves. ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
They choose to work together more and finally begin to see the argument from both sides. They still argue, but more of the jury is willing to listen
and work with Eight. For example, Four finally changes his mind after hearing Eight explain that the woman's testimony is false because she was not
wearing her glasses, saying that it was "Funny. [He] had never thought of [that]" (Rose 107). He sees the flaws in his argument and doesn't continue
fighting. Other jurors start to listen as well. The late jury has a much more open mind and are more willing to change their opinions. They slowly start
to work together and come to a consensus. The late jury falls into order and works together after much chaos and

Juror Eight In Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose
Picture a room with a large table in the center. There is a door, but it is locked. Filling up all the twelve seats around the table, there are twelve men:
jurors debating the murder of a man living near the el tracks. The man's son is his alleged killer, but one juror is not convinced. This image is from
Twelve Angry Men, a play written by Reginald Rose. The Eighth Juror is being fair to the child, explaining how there are many "what–if's" in the
situation. Juror Eight brings up many different pieces of evidence and logic to try to understand both sides of the case. He also wants the other jurors
to see each side because he wants a fair trial. So, Juror Eight plays a very important part in this play. Juror Eight began the story by ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Instead of getting angry at the Sixth Juror immediately and saying hurtful things back, he continued with his argument politely. In summary, Juror
Eight reveals many traits and characteristics of himself and these characteristics and his actions impact the story greatly. When the Eighth Juror tried
to open the discussion and give the boy a fair trial, he created the whole story. The entire play would not have even occurred if not for the Eighth
Juror. At the start, all of the jurors wanted to go home. Several even talk about how they want to "get this over with" (Rose 7). So, all jurors were
willing to vote as quickly as possible even if it meant that the defendant may not get the fairest hearing. But, the eighth was not willing to allow this
because he wanted a fair trial. So, without the Eighth Juror, would there even be a story to tell? Most would think not. Juror Eight says many things
that make the rest of the jury think a lot about. For instance, he states, "It's not easy to identify a voice" (Rose 32). By bringing up this valid
reasoning, he added to the story and gave the boy a fair chance by questioning whether the story of everybody involved in the case is definitely true.
Furthermore, if the Eighth Juror had not promoted the discussion of this boy's case, everyone would have voted guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But,
there was reasonable doubt from Juror Eight, as

Analysis Of The Play ' 12 Angry Men ' By Reginald Rose
Feature Article
Prejudice is like a ghost, it has been haunting the human race since the very beginning. Maddison Hinte investigates the way prejudice affects our
society by changing our views of others and the way we treat them. The play '12 angry men' by Reginald Rose discusses that we shouldn 't judge
people on their background, on their style, or on their religion, instead we need to focus on what matters most, what's on the inside. Literature both
teaches and encourages us to question the issue of prejudice in today's society.
Can you honestly say you 've never judged a book by its cover? I 'm sure that we have all picked a book up, looked at its cover and then put it down
because it 'looks' unappealing. You may not know it, but you do this to people too. Every day we make up profiles of people we don 't even know in
our heads just by looking at their cover, we look at what 's on the outside. Instead of reading the pages first we look at their picture, their age, sex,
race, and style before getting to know them first. Are we ever going to look past someone's cover and read a few pages before we make up our minds
about them?
Whether we like it or not the human race has fallen into prejudices trap. It has been ingrained in the human race; we will never be free from its grip.
Charles R. Swindoll states 'Prejudice is a learned trait. You 're not born prejudiced; you 're taught it.' This quote is unquestionably true; it comes
naturally to us now. In today's society it's so

The Twelve Angry Men Juror 3 and Juror 8 Comparing Essay
Comparison essay comparing Juror 3 and Juror 8
What are some similarities between Jurors 3 and 8? What about differences?
Oh gosh, it's been years since I've seen the movie (didn't read the play).
Okay, Juror #3 is the angry father, and Juror #8 is the guy who stands alone in the INNOCENT vote, right?
I suspect the similarities are easier to find by reading the play because the movie really shows their contrasts. There is one similarity in that when they
really believe something, they are passionate about their cause.
Juror 3 is explosive and highly emotional
Juror 8 thinks before speaking and is a calming influence on the jury
Juror 3 is loud
Juror 8 is quiet
Juror 3 expects people to agree with him and ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In the movie 12 Angry Men, juror number 8 (Henry Fonda) was not sure if evidence presented...
Twelve Angry Men The play пїЅTwelve Angry MenпїЅ, By Reginald Rose, is a play about 12 jurors that in an uncomfortable room have to discuss a
life and death case about a boy that is accused or killing his father. the jurors do not really know eachother to talk to and wish they were anywhere but
in that jury room. Every juror has a different emotional pattern that makes the play interesting. In my opinion there were 3 main jurors
12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men A persons surroundings can influence him. In "12 Angry Men" by Reginald Rose a young mans life is held by twelve men with
contrasing views. Eight ... in the jury room: Juror 8, Juror 3 and Juror 9. Juror 8 is important because he is smart, brave, and fair. Juror 3 was
important because he was the antagonist, he was mean, and he was intolerant. Juror 9 was important because he wasnпїЅt afraid of confronting other

jurors. Juror 8 was a very important juror, he was the protagonist. He was the one that proved the truth. Juror 8 was very smart, he bought a knife
similar to
12 Angry Men
12 Angry MenA persons surroundings can influence him. In "12 Angry Men" by Reginald Rose a young manslife is held by twelve men with
contrasing views. Eight a caring man, ... the one used in the crime to prove that is easy to get an identical knife, and he proved that it

Analysis Of ' Twelve Angry Men ' By Reginald Rose
The statement "Drama reflects real life on a stage" is shown through the powerful dramatic play by Reginald Rose, 'Twelve Angry Men'. Reginald
rose through the effective use of characterisation, conflict and tension, symbolism, language and setting, Rose dramatically reflects human
experiences with 'Twelve Angry Men'. It is a play that directly appeals to our sense of justice and equality and questions audiences to contemplate
the arguments on a 'fair trial' in a judicial process when 'reasonable doubt' is also taken into consideration. Reginald Rose also reflects human nature
and experiences by taking into account the emphasis on each individual's civic duty and responsibility to maintain fairness through the eyes of the
law and shows how easily unbiased truth can be blinded by personal prejudice when conflict and tension are involved. The play by Reginald Rose,
'Twelve Angry Men' is a powerful, moving play with a perspective made up of a variety of point of views from different Jurors who have distinct and
contrasting backgrounds, social–economic states, ethics and personalities. Rose enforces and emphasises dramatic conflict and action with the use of
techniques such as pathetic fallacy and claustrophobia in the setting to enforce and set the build–up of tension in the room. Characterisation shows the
contrasting personalities of different Jurors and shows how personal prejudice can have a big impact in a judicial process. The 8th Juror shows how
characterisation is used

Stereotypes In Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose
In the play "Twelve Angry Men" by Reginald Rose, twelve classic stereotypes of people are portrayed. These stereotypes, in the form of twelve jurors,
are rounded up to discuss a homicide case– a young minority who is possibly responsible for his father's murder. One of these stereotypes is molded
into the polished, wealthy Juror 4. In my group's script, this character acts as a radical liberal, supporting gun control. He relies entirely on facts for
evidence, tries to act as a leader, and remains unwavered by emotions. To begin, Juror 4 only uses his vast knowledge–base of facts to back up his
thinking. When Juror 10 implies that he doesn't believe in gun control, Juror 4 is quick to spit out facts about regions with strong gun enforcement,
stating that "[United States'] gun homicide rate is 25 times higher than all those... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
As can be seen from these quotes, Juror 4 does not take other potential factors that may contribute to these numbers into consideration. He could have
considered whether the Japan murder rate in 2008 was that low only that year, or whether the other "high–income countries" have other elements
besides gun control laws that reduce the homicide rates. But he does not. Instead, he pauses at what is given to him, never hunting for potential
loopholes. Thus, Juror 4 relies on citations to make his point across, never incorporating deeper thinking. Also, he acts as a leader, facilitating and
regulating events. After Juror 10 violently smacks a cough drop out of Juror 2's hand, Juror 4 acts as the peacemaker by saying "Now now, calm
down." This juror sees it as his job to make sure everything stays in line, which is an important leadership trait. Lastly, Juror 4 is portrayed as

Juror 8 In 12 Angry Men, By Reginald Rose
Different viewpoints of life will affect how we see the law and how we take situations and manipulate them. In the play 12 Angry Men by Reginald
Rose. Juror 8 is unique from his fellow jury members. He has many reasonable points and requires discussion about the case before making a final
decision. The play demonstrates that Juror 8 wants justice to be served and will fight to see that it is done. He views life as sacred as he stands up for
the boy on trial to live.
Juror 8 is a sharp–witted man with. He views his job to be taken seriously, unlike Juror 7 who makes it undoubtedly clear that he would rather be at the
ball game rather than in the jury room, making the final verdict. Juror 8 stands up against a large group of men who disagree ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
This play is not shy from showing that this had affected the jurors votes on why they thought the boy was guilty. Even with the never ending shouting
about how Juror 10 hates coloured people, Juror 8 recognizes his own prejudices and tries to overcome them for the sake of justice.
Juror 8 shows us that he views life as being important, too much to just be taken away because of skin color or a rush to the ball game. He takes on
the responsibility of assuming that it is in his position to protect the boy's life before making any final assumptions. "There were eleven votes for
guilty. It's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first." This act shows his desire to contemplate
important decisions rather than make an impulsive choice without thinking.
While keeping it classy, Juror 8 sees life through the bigger picture. He fully empathizes, keeping an open mind and he works hard for what he
wants. He shows full responsibility for making sure that justice is served and he makes sure that he will not send an innocent boy off to jail before
talking about the case. He values the gift of life and he thinks that it should not be taken away so

I Had Never Get Out Of Your Head
You know that experience you have that you can really never get out of your head? It is not a good memory, one you will probably not tell your
mother about until you are well in your forties? I had one of those during my second week of college. My group of friends that experienced this night
with me included my roommate Dionia, Reggie, Reginald, and Fredrek. I met Reggie through Dionia, they are both from Orangeburg, SC and
attended the same high school. Reginald is Reggie's roommate which is how I met Reginald, and Fredrek is Reginald's friend. Fredrek, Reginald
and I all happen to be from the same town so we all clicked instantly. The second week of school we were all ready to go out and had some fun, that
night we decided to meet up in my dorm so we could go out together. Until that night on Franklin Boulevard I had never felt so scared and helpless in
my life.
I was never a person to go out and party in my hometown, but being 18 and in college I decided I would branch out a little but not to where I would be
uncomfortable. Coming to Greensboro I knew there were parts of the city that were prone to violence, being new to the city I did not know where
those areas were just yet. We decided earlier in the week that we were going to go out that Saturday, Fredrek started looking on Snapchat for
addresses or any flyers for parties that we could go to. He found two, one was downtown at a "club" and the other was a house party. The night we were
going out we took an Uber while

Justice In Twelve Angry Men, By Reginald Rose
According to Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose shows that, sometimes justice needs someone to fight to be fair. To some people justices seems
unfair because they never new how justices taste. We don't have to let our selfless believe is or is not by the background of someone else lives
because we don't know if they have changed. Knowing that you have the life of somebody else and that you must judged whether is or is not
guilty is not easy to decide. On the argument juror number 8 is the one the fight to see justice on the case without taking caring about the facts that
they so far have. On "Twelve Angry Men" Juror 8 refuses to believe the boy was guilty because he was justice to be done and he fight to see it. On
page3 juror 8 said " [....] Its not easy for me to raise my hand and send s boy off to die without talking about it first". This proves that juror 8 didn't
care the decision of the others jurors because he wanted to make a difference and talk about al the facts. Also pages 16 and 21 juror proves again his
point by saying "[...] the old man couldn't have heard the boy say I'm going to kill you, but supposing he did [..] How many times has each of you
used it [...] this doesn't mean that we're going to kill you" and... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Juror8 say you really mean you'll kill me, do you?" This proves that sometimes you say things that we don't mean to. Like sometimes we told the
phrase I hate you to our parents but the doesn't mean we hate them because they our parent we love them even if we don't say it. On the last page of
Twelve Men Angry juror 8 said "there's nothing we can do about that, expect hope that some night, maybe in a few months, you'll get some sleep". This
demonstrates that he was telling to the others jurors that whether their decide the boy was guilty or not, they would continue thinking if their decision
was the correct or

Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose
or this project we viewed the original 1957 version of Twelve Angry Men, an American Drama, adapted from the teleplay written by Reginald
Rose with the same name starring Henry Fonda as the lead role. The film begins in New York City in a courthouse, it is clear by the expressions
on everyone's face including the judge that everyone is tired and it has been a long trial. The viewers are told that an unidentified, young Hispanic
male originating from the slums is on trial for supposedly stabbing his father to death. The viewers are also given the final closing arguments,
including the testimony of two witnesses; one an elderly man saying that he heard the father and son argue then heard a body drop, and the other a
woman who lives across the street who claims to have seen the boy murder his father. The Jurors and audience are told that if a verdict of guilty is
found then there is a mandatory death sentence that will follow. From there the viewers see that the 12 Jurors retire to a private room where they
briefly become acquainted before the deliberation begins. It is clear to the viewers that even before deliberation begins that there are clear biases
among the Jurors. The Jurors number off and give their verdicts, and almost right off the bat all the Jurors, aside from one (Juror #8), vote guilty – and
they also make it clear that they plan to deliver said verdict without forethought, on Henry Fonda (Juror #8) is the opposing vote of not guilty. His vote
of not guilty

Film: Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose
12 ANGRY MEN Twelve Angry men is a 1957 American drama film by Reginald Rose. This film narrates the story about 12 Jury. In this film twelve
Angry men, twelve jurors are deciding the fate of a young man consider in charge of killing his father. All through every one of the members of the
jury, Juror number 8 gave an incredible case of authority. He had a stunning nature of leadership and he utilizes his qualities to influence the whole
Juries to vote of not guilty. In the beginning of the film Juror 8 shows his first leadership quality Imagination. "Imaginary leaders are open to new
information". In this film twelve angry men, Juror 8 has the ability of imagination that the young man may had not killed his father. An example of
imagination

Wrong Does Not Make It Right By Reginald Rose
Wrong Does Not Make It Right
The most stressful time is when you are in a court room. When people are in a court room they are very tense because there is a case they have to
talk about. The foreman in this book is a very just man, and he doesn't want people to get into fights. I think Reginald Rose wrote this book because
he wants us to stay calm even when we are in stressful times to not make things worse. He wanted people to have justice when others are wronged.
Also, he wanted people to think of their wrongdoings, and make a change about it.
Reginald Rose wanted others to have justice when they see others are wronged. "If you want to vote not guilty, then do it because you are convinced
the man is not guilty. If you believe he is guilty,

12 Angry Men By Reginald Rose
An issue that has been circulating is whether or not to conform. Rob Siltanen says, "... The ones who see things differently. They 're not fond of rules.
And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can 't do is
ignore them. Because they change thing.[...]" ( cited) What he says is agreeable because the one that does not conform, will be the one that changes
themselves,their society and even their future. This matter is an open topic of debate because one may agree that an individual does not need to conform
to society 's ideals in order to find their happiness or be successful in life.
When an individual chooses to not conform, it will lead them to their future and their own accomplishment. In the play,12 Angry Men, by Reginald
Rose, readers can understand that one do not have to conform to what is the majority but an individual could be successful with their own action and
thoughts. Juror 8 uses pathos to defend the boy by arguing, "Look, this boy 's been kicked around all his life. You know– living in a slum, his mother
dead since he was nine. He spent a year and a half in an orphanage while his father served a jail term for forgery. That 's not a very good head start.
He had a pretty terrible sixteen years. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That 's all" (Rose 5). Juror eight states that he cannot condemn a fellow
human being to the death sentence without first talking about

Essay on Ignorance in 12 Angry Men
Twelve Angry Men, is a play written by Reginald Rose. The play is about the process of individuals and a court case, which is determining the fate of a
teenager. It presents the themes of justice, independence and ignorance. Rose emphasises these three themes through the characters and the dialogue.
Justice is the principle of moral rightness or equity. This is shown through juror number eight who isn't sure whether or not the boy is actually innocent
or guilty, but he persists to ask questions and convinces the other jurors to think about the facts first. Independence is shown through both juror number
three and ten. They both believe that the defendant is guilty until they both realise that they can not relate there past experiences with ... Show more
He says "For this kid? You bet I'd pull theswitch" juror eight then calls him a "self– appointed public avenger" which stuns juror number three.
Justice is the most important theme throughout this play. It proves that truth can't be found without a struggle. In the play there was only one juror
wanting to hear all the evidence in the court case. But when more facts were found out then some of the other jurors wanted to hear the rest of it,
which would determine whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty. No one really knew if the boy was guilty but or not but they figured out that he
was not given a fair trial. The defence barrister didn't care because he wasn't getting paid enough money to care. So that's what the jurors thought it was
up to them then, to repay the boy with justice.
Juror number three is an arrogant, self–minded and extremely ambiguous has had a personal experience in his life, that's why he wants the boy dead.
His son ran away from a fight when he was nine. " I saw him. I was so ashamed I almost threw up." Then when he was older the boy then hit him in
the face and he has never seen him since. This puts a pre– judged view inside of his head. In the end he thinks to himself that it is not his son that is on
trial therefore he can not treat him like that. He can't hate all teenagers because of his son. Juror number ten is similar to number three in

Through Twelve Angry Men Flim, the author, Reginald Rose, paints a picture of a small portion of American society in the mid
–1950s. At this time,
the United States was envolving into an internal struggle, the Civil Rights Movement, which was concerned with ending racism discrimination and
promoting freedom, respect and equality. Rose's movie presents domestic conflicts which exist in a stereotypical American society and politic in
1950s in America. 12 Angry Men is the story of 12 jurors who must decide if a boy is guilty or not guilty of killing his father. It takes place in New
York City Court of Law jury room where 12 jurors must come a unanimous conclusion. A great deal oflogical fallacies were presented by jurrors in
attempt to prove that the defendent as guilty. One of most obvious fallacy that is committed in the 12 Angry Men is the hasty generalization
fallacy.This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. In the 12 Anfry
Men, this logical fallacy is made by the tenth juror, E.G Marshell. He supports his argument, " That's boy was born in street, everyone in that street
does those thing." He assumes that the boy committed the crime because the town that he was born where has the reputation of commiting crime. He
is making a form of prejudice called stereotyping because he is making an unwarranted generalization about people who are the same race, Hispanic,
as the boy.. It is based on this

Stereotyping in the World is the Universal Message of 12...
Through history people have tended to judge the lives of other by what they see on the outside, and completely disregard their actually character.
"Stereotyping in the World" today has become a greater and greater problem has history moves on. Some have been known to look past these cases
such as Reginald Rose's book Twelve Angry Men. The play has been shown that one voice can change the thoughts of many by getting past the first
layer and breaking it down to their inner person. Twelve Angry Men has showed the theme of "Stereotyping in the World" through the characters'
proper reasoning, communicating, and believing in good faith. For instance, the characters had to use the proper reasoning of understand to begin to
understand one ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
All 12 jurors begin to realize events in the case all show the good faith they have in their own lives. Including from their own lives each juror has gone
through a point in time were even they were stereotyped by the world. The jury has been convinced that the boy has been severely stereotyped
through the whole case and court. The 3rd juror let the case come into his own life and he made his own opinion on the boy without even paying
attention to detail, he reflected his own life in his argument with stereotypes (72). The lives of the jurors have all been affected by the acts of
stereotyping and see the effects of it that can have on someone. A boy that at the beginning almost lost his life due to the people just looking at him
was saved by the fact that the jury looked past all that. The play showed the theme of "Stereotyping in the World" through the characters' proper
reasoning, communicating, and believing in good faith. Twelve Angry Men allowed the views of many different men to see past the outside of a
person and look at who they actually are. The play will put the test of each of the jurors' character and show that the clear theme in the play is
"Stereotyping in the World." The boy has been out in a life where he has no other way out of the setting and must live in. Even though he lives in the
area does not mean that he is that category and so does the

12 Angry Men By Reginald Rose: An Analysis
Life and death in their hands but they don't care, do you think justice is a joke? In the play of 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, there are 12 jurors
who have to make a life or death decision of a 19 year old boy because he supposedly stabbed his father all the jurors believe he was guilty. Until one
motivated juror actually looked closely into the facts.It's the jury's responsibility to analyze and dig much deeper into the defendant's case, its unfair
to put an end to a man's life just because the jury did not care to take a closer look for a reasonable doubt.But they are too lazy and just want's to get
threw it very quick because they got something better to do.
In the beginning of the book jury 7 says to the rest of the 11 jurors ''Right, this better be fast i've got tickets to The Lion King for tonight''(Rose 13).
Clearly he doesn't want to be there. Do you know how to become a juror? Our judicial system picks random, ordinary, everyday citizens to send
someone to prison or not. Most of our everyday citizen got better things to do than being locked up with 11 other people for hours. They want to get
out of there as fast as they can so they vote quickly and not looking deeper into the evidence. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
They're no good. There's not one of 'em who's any good"(59). when juror ten says "they're no good" he's referring to race. In the real world, there is
still a lot of people like that. "Out of the 317 exonerees they analyzed 200 of them were African american"(N.p., n.d. Web). That statistic shows if
you're African american and you're in court your chances of being guilty are high even if you're

12 Angry Men- Jurors 4 and 8 Essay
Reginald Rose's '12 Angry Men' brings 12 jurors together in a room to decide whether a young foreign boy is guilty of killing his father. The play is
interwoven with dynamic characterisation, striking symbolism and intense moments of drama. Although Rose positions Juror 8 as the hero, the
strongest character is in fact Juror 4, who is an independent thinker, rational and calm even as tension begins to build. Although Juror 4 initially votes
guilty, he is able to admit his fault and change his vote.
The ability to remain independent proved to be the most important character trait of Juror 4. Throughout the play, Rose's character is able to think freely
and never lets his personal bias or peer–pressure affect his decision making. When ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Juror 4 was able to communicate his ideas and thought like a professional and did so in an organised fashion. He analysed each piece of evidence with
care and used logic and his skills of deduction to guide his vote. Rose intended for the audience to realise that the not guilty vote was the right choice
and used Juror 4 as a catalyst for the final vote change.
Juror 4 is able to remain calm and composed throughout the most stressful of situations. While Juror 10 exhibits racial outbursts; "They get drunk",
"That's the way they are!", "VIOLENT!", "These people are dangerous. They're wild. Listen to me. Listen." Juror 4 sat through this entire scene
without saying a word. It is only until Juror 10's monologue is finished that Juror 4 speaks, calmly asking Juror 10 to "Shut [his] filthy mouth."
Juror 4 never discredits or implies anything towards the defendant and is always careful of what he says. After Juror 10's tirade, Juror 4 tries to
soften the impact created by 10; "Slums are potential breeding grounds for criminals." He never attacks or hypes the situation at hand. He draws
around 'potential' possibilities. Juror 4 initially had his doubts at the start of the case but was the only character that overcame his predisposition based
on the analysis of facts and evidence. Rose's character and only this character had the intelligence, confidence and persistence to keep his head in the
tense moment Juror 10 created.
Juror 8 is

12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose
The literary element setting includes the time when the story happens and location where the story takes place. Some stories use variety of settings to
initiate an interesting beginning. However, the 12 Angry Man has only one fixed setting– the jury room, which is not commonly used in a novel. The
author, Reginald Rose, overcomes the limitation in setting by describing changes in weather, initiating different types of character and imitating the
events of the murder. First of all, the author overcomes the limitation in setting by describing changes in weather. In the story, the weather had a
major effect which leads the change in feeling. The weather changes from very hot to raining to storming. In act I, it's a extremely hot day, all of the
12 jurors sitting in an closed room, the air conditioner was unfortunately not working. This makes all of the jurors annoyed, such as juror 7 said
(Reginald 6). The foreman was trying to fix the electronic fan. Because of the hot weather, it makes the atmosphere intense as well. The high
temperature makes the jurors annoyed and makes it harder for them to vote. Moreover, when it begins to rain, the jurors start to be more irritated and
annoyed. For example, juror 7, he got really angry and became impatient because his baseball game had been cancelled due to the heavy rain. Juror 7 is
a big fan of baseball, like he said: "This better to be fast. I got tickets to a ball game tonight. Yankees– Cleveland". When it storms, a big fights and

The performance I chose to focus on is Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose. It is a play I went to watch at the repertory theatre in Birmingham.
The play is set up in a New York City court of law jury room in 1957. The play opens in an empty jury room, where the judge's voice is heard in the
background, giving a set of final instructions to the jurors. From this voice over the audience instantly get an impression that it is a murder case and
that if found guilty, the required sentence for the accused is the death penalty. After the final instructions from the judge the twelve men who decide to
take a break before deliberating enter into the scene. They scatter around the room, some sitting, some standing and some standing outside. They
complained that the room was hot and without air conditioning and the fan doesn't work.... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The other eleven want him to change his vote so they can carry their verdict and go home. He refuses, so they have to argue about it. If they can't
reach a united decision, the case will have to be re–tried. They argue a lot but slowly, the other eleven jurors come around to agreeing with the one that
thinks the accused was innocent, and that his lawyer did a useless job of representing him. They all have different characters and different reasons for
believing the way they do, so it's not all the same disagreement each time. They go through all the evidence presented in the trial, so the audience get a
sense of what happened. In the end, they all come around to the one guy's way of thinking, and unanimously agree to deliver a verdict of "not guilty."
Justice

The Jury System In 12 Angry Men By Reginald Rose
Would you enjoy going to jail for a crime you did not commit? The author for 12 angry men, Reginald Rose, had a purpose for writing this play.
His purpose for 12 angry men was to show how the jury system can be effective and ineffective with their flaws. "... it's so not easy for me to raise
my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first". ( Rose 5 ) juror number eight is showing effectiveness by not going with what all the
others have decided but instead wants to talk about the case. Juror number eight is the good about the jury system and how it's necessary to go over the
cases no matter what even if they were talked about it in court. However , Throughout the play during juror number three is not willing to listen to what

Reginald Rose
It is often difficult for film to be well–accepted by its audience unless the recipe contains appropriate amount of glamour, romance and suspense,
especially in the 50–70's in Hollywood, which was known to be the golden age of entertainment, with jazz music, Broadway musicals etc. 12 angry
man was such a film without any of these elements, yet managed to capture the interest of movie lovers even after 6 decades. It was directed by
Sidney Lumet in 1957; with the brilliance of Reginald Rose's screenwriting and exceptional casting. Actors like Henry Fonda, Lee Cobb did a
wonderful work in the movie where Rose's writing was so progressive that viewers from today's generation have no difficulty relating to the plot. The
essence of the movie is in... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
However, it is impossible to know for sure that the boy is innocent when so many evidences are against him and according to the boy's alibi it
appears as if someone framed him, which is highly improbable. So even though Mr. Davis rationally opposed all the evidences along with his fellow
jurors' assumptions and prejudices, their arguments were valid. The boy was regularly abused by his father; he belongs in a neighbourhood where
crime is occupation. And he did have a hostile argument with his father the night he was killed. It is 90% possible that he committed the crime.
Although n the film juror 8's argument never once implied that the boy is not guilty, he just wanted a rational discussion before blindly convicting the
boy. I am glad he did, because even though the decision of the 11 jury seemed collective, it reflected different underlying motives for each jury
members, where juror 10 expressed his racist prejudice towards the boy being Latin and all the

It is very hard to not allow prejudice out of your mind, making decisions about others. It always seems that prejudice obscures the truth whatever you
do. This best sums up the story of the play, Twelve Angry Men. Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, is about twelve caucasian jurors who are
forced to make a verdict on whether a defendant of non–caucasian descent is guilty or not for premeditated homicide against his father. Unfortunately,
the whole verdict seemed to depend on the thoughtful juror number eight who wants justice to be done and will fight to see that it is. In the drama,
biases are unceasingly evident in the courtroom and disastrously influence the crucial decision of what will take effect to the defendant of a case. Many
biases are chaperoned in the courtroom of the play from the jurors that heavily influence the verdict. Confirmation bias, the tendency to only seek
information that confirms your expectations and ignore disconfirming information, most evidently influences the thought process of the jurors in order
to reach their verdict throughout the play. Rose states, "What do you mean! Sure, he could have heard it...You keep coming up with these bright
sayings. Why don't you send one in to a newspaper?" (Rose 33). This quote proves that juror number three could not counter the argument made by
juror eight about the el train's noise making it impossible for the witness to hear "i'll kill you" and he tried to disregard the argument by changing the

12 Angry Men By Reginald Rose: The Justice System
The justice system is very important, for it dictates the future of someone's life. If someone walks away guilty, justice was not served. If someone
gets sentenced to life in prison for a crime they didn't commit, the justice system will have failed them. It is essential that everyone receives a proper
trial to evaluate their situation. In the play 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, it is revealed that humans effect on justice can be bias by their personal
experiences and nature. Jurors 3, 5, and 10 are the epitome of this claim. Personal experiences can affect justice. Juror #3 is truly an angry man. He is
short–sighted, ignorant and bias from his personal experiences. He struggled raising his son and had many quarrels with him. His son also just

An Analysis of Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose
"In reaching the verdict, the jurors reconsider both their understanding of the case and their understanding of themselves." Discuss
Twelve Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose in 1957, portrays the intense discussion between 12 jurors in the American jury about a 16 year old boy,
who is accused of killing his own father, and charged with "premeditated homicide", the most serious charge in court. It explores the flaws of human
nature, and the impacts of misinterpretations of the case can have on the defendant. However, they play also illustrates when jurors reassess the case
and themselves, they will finally follow the judge's words, which is to "separate the facts from the fancy." Throughout the play, all jurors reconsiders
about the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This shows that the 6th juror now has a clear and deep understanding of the case however he has not reached a new understanding of himself since he
has limited impact in Act

12 Angry Men By Reginald Rose: Play Analysis
Want a good read but are tired of the same old story format? Try reading a play instead! One play write I would suggest to read would be 12 Angry
Men, by Reginald Rose. This is a three act play that opens in a New York City court room, where an 18 year old boy is being charged for the murder
of his father. The story goes on to show the fate of this boys future rests in the hands of twelve jurors. Do they vote him guilty or not guilty?12 Angry
Men is a outstanding play that has many themes like prejudice and justice that is shown through a captivating writing style.
Whether you reading a book, writing a paper, or watching a move one of the most important elements is the theme. What is a theme?
Literarydevices.com explains "The theme of any ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Well, don't you know about them? Listen to me! What are you doing? I'm trying to tell you something...."(Rose 19)
Juror 4 then basicly shuts him up saying,
"FOUR. I've had enough. If you open your mouth again, I'm going to split your skull."(Rose 19)
Not only is there prejudiced behavior in the main conflict towards the boy but there is also to the fifth juror. Juror eleven is a refugee from Europe
who has come to this country and honestly wants justice for the boy. See prejudice behavior from juror five to eleven in this piece of text.
"SEVEN. I go for that, too. Let's take it into the judge and let the kid take his chances with twelve other guys.
FIVE (to SEVEN). You mean you still don't think there's room for reasonable doubt?
SEVEN. No I don't.
ELEVEN. I beg your pardon. Maybe you don't understand the term "reasonable doubt."
SEVEN (angry). What do you mean I don't understand it? Who do you think you are to talk to me like that? (To all) How do you like this guy? He
comes over here running for his life, and before he can even take a big breath he's telling us how to run the show. The arrogance of him!
FIVE (to SEVEN). Wait a second. Nobody around here's asking where you came from.
SEVEN. I was born right

Essay about The Power of Leadership in 12 Angry Men
Once planted in the minds of individuals, ideas have a remarkable ability to grow with the strength and speed of the most powerful pathogens –
possessing equal communicability as they spread to proximal centers of consciousness. How can this characteristic of ideas be utilized to benefit
society? In the film Twelve Angry Men, we see a situation where Juror Eight– equipped with all the autonomy and wisdom of an ideal leader – appeals
to logos in an attempt to promote the consideration of an idea, which he has planted in the minds of an otherwise unanimous jury; this idea being the
mere possibility of innocence in the conviction of a boy charged with patricide. Ideally, leaders will possess an ability to transcend the ... Show more
After the twelve jurors had taken their initial vote, Juror Eight found himself to be a pariah among his associates, for simply possessing an opinion
contradictory to the other 11 men in the room; breaking the pattern of unanimous voting, and declaring that he felt the accused might not be guilty.
After the other jurors took turns verbally expressing their dissatisfaction with his audacious contradiction to the majority opinion, Juror Eight calmly
responded: "It's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first" (Fonda). Here lies the fundamental
characteristic that renders Juror Eight a leader among his peers: his desire to consider the situation at hand to a deeper extent than what the other jurors
felt was necessary. This inherent drive to face the true perplexity of the situation and submerge his consciousness under the pressure that upheld a
human life ultimately led Juror Eight to shed light upon the holes in the evidence, and find an opinion worthy of acting upon. By deeply evaluating the
witness's' testimonies, and considering the consequences of his decision, Juror Eight considered the situation before him deep within the dimensions of
empathy and skepticism. The minds that can embark on such voyages through labyrinthine speculation

Juror 10 In Twelve Angry Men, By Reginald Rose
In the play Twelve Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, Rose characterizes Juror 10 as a strong, ignorant man who blindly states his opinions
without having the ability to back it up. Juror 10 takes it upon himself to get his opinions strongly across to the other jurors. Expressing his opinions to
the jurors, "You know, they get drunk, and bang, someone's lying in the gutter..." Feeling uncomfortable, Jurors 5, 9 and 11 leaves the table and moves
to the window. Juror 10 continues, "Human life don't mean as much to them as it does to us." As a result, all the jurors excluding the foreman move to
the window. After realizing that no one is paying attention, he exclaims, "Listen to me! What are you doing? I'm trying to tell you something" (60)....
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Not only does he strongly voice his opinions, but he tends to go back on his words. When analyzing the witness' testimony, the statement, "I'm
going to kill you" is brought up. Juror 8 then points out that the defendant is "too bright" to shout such a thing to the neighborhood. Baffled, the
10th Juror shouts, "Bright! He's a common, ignorant slob. He don't even speak good English!" Juror 11 catches his error and subtly corrects his
grammar, "[slowly] He doesn't even speak good English" (37). When Juror 10 voices his statements, it coincidentally shows his own ignorance. The
10th Juror continues to show his ignorance by referring the defendant as "those people" (14) and thinking that they're all born liars (8). Based on
these opinions, Juror 10 votes "guilty." When the 8th Juror asks, "You don't believe the boy. How come you believe the woman? She's one of "them",
too, isn't she?" The Juror 10 loses his smile, "You're a pretty smart fella, aren't you"

Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose Essay
Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose The play "Twelve Angry Men", By Reginald Rose, is a play about 12 jurors that in an uncomfortable room
have to discuss a life and death case about a boy that is accused or killing his father. the jurors do not really know eachother to talk to and wish they
were anywhere but in that jury room. Every juror has a different emotional pattern that makes the play interesting. In my opinion there were 3 main
jurors in the jury room: Juror 8, Juror 3 and Juror 9. Juror 8 is important because he is smart, brave, and fair. Juror 3 was important because he was the
antagonist, he was mean, and he was intolerant. Juror 9 was important because he wasn't afraid of confronting other jurors.
Juror 8 was ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In addition, Juror 8 was also fair. He said "It's not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die with out talking about it first" when he
was the only one that voted not guilty in the first vote. He also listened to everyone's opinions and never insulted anyone. Juror 3 was also a very
important juror in the jury room. Juror 3 was the antagonist. He was the main enemy of Juror 8 and he was trying to keep people from believing
that the boy was not guilty. Juror 3 was also mean. He wanted everyone to think the way he did, and lost his temper whenever they didn't. In addition,
Juror 3 was also intolerant. He didn't want to listen to anybody's opinions and in the discussion that he had with Juror 8 on page 147 in the book, it
seemed that he personally wanted the kid to die.
Another very important juror in the jury room was Juror 9. Juror 9 was a fair man. He voted not guilty because he had a reasonable doubt in his
mind and he listened to everyone's opinions, Juror 9 was also smart. He made a reasonable doubt by saying that the old man might of lied to get
attention because he noticed that he was a quiet, frightened, insignificant man who has probably never been nothing all his life. He also remembered
that the woman in the train had bifocals, and that she never took them off. that made a reasonable doubt on everyone's mind because it would of been
very hard for the woman in the

Character Foils In Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose
Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose is one of the only literary pieces that reveals the dark truth of America post–WWII. This is a play depicting a
jury of twelve white men deciding if a sixteen–year old defendant is guilty of the murder of his own father. In addition, knowledge versus ignorance is
the strongest theme in Twelve Angry Men. Rose uses a set of character foils with static characters, a specific time and place, and the archetype of
darkness versus light to convey this idea. Effectively, Rose's style and use of character foils is a great indicator that supports this specific theme. The
greatest and most obvious example of a character foil that supports the theme is the foil of juror four and juror twelve. While the jurors start arguing

The Importance Of Setting In 12 Angry Men By Reginald Rose
In the play 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the physical setting is shown to be of vital importance in a jury room. The setting in 12 Angry Men is an
uncomfortable, hot jury room. It creates many biased jurors and many obstacles for the jurors to overcome to decide on the fate of the defendant. The
jury room in 12 Angry Men has a very high temperature. Juror Seven says "y'know, it's hot" (page 10) because he is uncomfortable. The heat is a
large distraction for the jurors because they want to leave the room and make a decision without conversing in detail about the case. . According to
Juror Twelve, "All I've done all day is sweat" (page 10). Sweating is a result of the heat and is making the jurors want to leave early and get the case
over

Having A System In Twelve Angry, By Reginald Rose
What is the point of having a system if it has faults to it? A family friend was being held at the adult detention center. His family was not able to
hire a lawyer for him at the time, so a lawyer was appointed to him. The problem with his appointed lawyer was that he didn't speak Spanish and
the family friend didn't speak English, therefore there was no way of communication. The lawyer did not find out anything about his case, he
didn't find out whether or not he had a work permit or a visa, which he did but had been expired. The attorney appointed to him just said, "Sign the
papers and you'll be released here." The family friend just did what the lawyer said because he thought he was helping him, not creating a bigger
problem. Now, he is fighting to stay here where he has built a life with his wife and kids. Again, what is the point of having a system if it has faults
to it? Problems in the system have been present since about the 1930s or 1940s and are still present to this day, it may not have as many faults
however some are still present. The play, "Twelve Angry Men," written by Reginald Rose, is about a kid ontrial who is accused of murdering his father.
Testimonies given by neighbors are raising questions among the jurors. A lady from across the railroad tracks claims she saw the kid murder her
father, she, however uses glasses and wouldn't be able to see anything without them. A man from the apartment complex claimed to have seen the kid
running down the stairs yet

The, Twelve Angry Men, By Reginald Rose
Set in the 1950's post depression America and written by world renowned playwright Reginald Rose, Twelve Angry Men has become a much loved
classic within the drama playwright genre. With an abundance of audacious themes skillfully displayed throughout the feature length play, Rose has
pushed the boundaries of the overly oppressive era from which the play was first published. The two main themes that were explored to great lengths
throughout the play were prejudices and stereotypes. These themes were both highlighted through the use of three key literary devices; structure,
setting and interactions of characters. Prior to act 1, character names are not listed in the structure, the characters are known only as their assigned
juror numbers, this is to prevent the audience from developing prejudices of the juror, 'The 8th Juror gazes out the window. The 12th Juror looks at
him for a moment then moves away', (pg. 4). This decision also puts the audience in a similar position to which the jurors are in; making a decision
on facts provided without any bias. Act one of the play is set in America after the abolishment of slavery, yet racism was still extremely prevalent and
widely accepted throughout the country. This certain prejudicial issue is highlighted in many key scenes during the play. The 10th Juror is a perfect
example of how the setting affects the play and depicts the themes of prejudices and stereotypes;"Brother, you can say that again. The kids who crawl
outa those

Analysis Of Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose
Extended Analysis Twelve Angry Men
Justice is a concept that is crucial to a fair and just society. For hundreds of years, countries have developed constitutions and other documents in place
to form justice for those within the country. In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the idea of justice is bounced around by twelve men on ajury.
These men have the unthinkable decisions of whether a suspected murderer is given the death penalty or able to walk free. The jury in Twelve Angry
Men made the most just decision they could. To understand how the decision they made was just and to explain some background, this essay will
cover a few major ideas. It will talk about how Reginald Rose included the ideas of: reasonable doubt, being innocent until proven guilty, the jury
system, and public defenders.
Twelve Angry Men touches on one of the key principles of the Americancriminal justice system. This is the belief of the defendant being innocent
until proven guilty. The idea is to give every person a fair trial that follows the rules set forth in the constitution. In Twelve Angry Men, a young man
is on trial for the murder of his father. Many of the jurors jump to conclusions about the defendant's guilt because of his lack of wealth and his
ethnicity. Several of jurors make comments similar to "these people" and "kids like this" are always up to no good (Rose 24). This shows an
assumption based not on the person, but on a very broad, vague, and stereotypical view. The biggest

Justice In Twelve Angry Men, By Reginald Rose
]In this trial, there are twelve angry men. These men are the jurors deciding a 19–year old's fate of life or death. So in the drama Twelve Angry Men by
Reginald Rose's shows justice through motif, dialogue, and imagery. The first way Reginald Rose shows justice is with a couple motifs. Like when
the jurors do the first vote "guilty, guilty, guilty, not guilty."(26 Rose) This shows justice on how everyone thought the boy was mainly guilty in the
start cause it's 11–1 guilty. Next, when the jurors decide to do another vote in the middle of the trial and they said " guilty, not guilty, guilty, guilty, not
guilty, not guilty, guilty, not guilty, not guilty, guilty, not guilty, guilty."(45
–46 Rose) This is starting to show how that one juror that voted not guilty
in the beginning vote is starting to change justice by changing the other juror's mind because it's 6–6 even on the vote. Then kinda near the last vote
there "not guilty, nine, all those voting guilty, three"(59 Rose). This shows how now everyone has mostly changed and the boy will most likely be
free. These motifs show how an opposition... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Like when the jurors are talking and say " In what way was it obvious? I mean that nobody proved otherwise."(18 Rose) Juror eight is talking to
juror two talking about if there sure the boy is actually guilty. Next, the jurors argue about "He didn't have any ticket stub. Who keeps a ticket stub
at the movies?"(18 Rose) Now they're arguing if he really went to the movies to see if he is really guilty or not. Next, when they talk about the
knife they said" Where did you get it? I got it in a little junk shop around the corner from the boy's house. It cost two dollars."(24 Roses) This shows
where all the jurors are arguing of the boy really used that knife to kill the father or the bot really dropped the knife out of his pocket. This shows how
dialogue can show communication which can prove proof and justice

Prejudice In 12 Angry Men, By Reginald Rose
Prejudice has seemed to be present in all aspects of our lives but more so in the courtroom. People of all walks of life have received unfair
judgement solely because they are from a different background. No matter where someone is from or what they look like they deserve the same
thing as a "normal" person. Throughout the history of mankind, people have mistreated or abused others because they look different than they do
or they are not from where they are from. Just as people in the early years of slavery in America did. Slave drivers brought over African people
because they were being sold off possibly for losing a war or a battle. These slaves were easily recognizable because of their skin color, therefore they
were set apart. The African people did not look like the white europeans that lived in America at the time, some treated the Africans differently because
of this. This... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
When Abraham Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation, it granted the slaves freedom. Later on black people tried to vote but the still very biased
people would try to prevent the "different" people from voting, by applying the "Grandfather clause." Obvious prejudices are shown in a case such
as this. These prejudices of the African people are still apparent in today's culture as well. In the book 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, the jurors
took a vote to see what everyone thought of the case and if they could come to a swift decision without having to debate. The vote turned out eleven to
one in favor of guilty. In the United States criminal justice system one of the most coveted concepts "innocent until proven guilty" is to be used in
such a case. The jurors all vote guilty immediately because Juror Three describes the defendant as such; "The man's a dangerous killer. You could see
it" (Rose 11).

Fallacies In 12 Angry Men, By Reginald Rose

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Julie Jones

More from Julie Jones (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Fallacies In 12 Angry Men, By Reginald Rose