The jury in Twelve Angry Men struggles to achieve a unanimous ruling for various reasons. The author demonstrates how difficult it is to get a decision when jurors have preconceived beliefs and bring personal prejudice to a case, as well as Jurors who lack interest. These concerns, without a doubt, produce disputes and difficulties in the Jury system, highlighting a potential flaw in the democratic process. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that Juror 8 is one of the few Jurors who first deliberate honestly and seriously and wants justice. Rose argues that active participation is required to ensure that the jury system works as intended and that the final verdict is simpler to attain when this occurs. Rose believes it is difficult for the jury to reach a decision when the Jurors have predetermined notions and exhibit bigotry.
The author illustrates the problem with people having personal prejudices in a case since it can blind them to the facts. This, in turn, makes it difficult for the Jurors to reach a consensus since it impairs their capacity to reason and understand things from another’s perspective. This point is emphasized by the venomous Juror 10, who represents bigotry and prejudice. Juror 10 exemplifies racism’s potential strength, believing that “the kids who crawl outta those places are real trash”(Rose 30). Finally, this preconceived notion makes it impossible to form a realistic view of the subject since it closes the door to his capacity to consider it from a different perspective. Furthermore, he finds it challenging to achieve an agreement since he is unwilling to separate the “facts” from the “fancy” (Rose 11). As a result of his reluctance to recognize reasonable doubt in the case, jury 10’s animosity might be seen as causing difficulty in concluding.
Furthermore, the dispute created by numerous jurors’ predispositions adds to the difficulties in obtaining a final decision. This is because it fosters an environment of resentment and suspicion among the jurors. For instance, jurors 3 and 8 disagree when jury 8 refers to juror 3 as a “sadist,” and a “self-appointed public avenger” who wants the “boy to die because [he] personally want it, not because of the facts” (Rose 73). This causes resentment between the two jurors, which is not resolved until jury 3 sees his bias and votes ‘not guilty. Nevertheless, his hostility toward jury 8 makes convincing him of the reasonable doubt in the case exceedingly difficult (Rose 73). Juror 3’s rage eventually diminishes, and he recognizes his prejudice when it is brought to his attention. This procedure is quite complex, which adds to the difficulty of obtaining a final decision.
Rose emphasizes the difficulties in reaching a final judgment by highlighting those who bring personal predisposition to a case. The author emphasizes the impact of personal prejudice on one’s capacity to consider somewhat via jury 3. Juror 3’s emotional baggage prevents him from effectively participating in the democratic process and determining the defendant’s guilt or innocence (Rose 72). Rose claims it is easier to agree with rigorous thinking since bias inhibits individuals from carrying out their civic responsibility. Juror 3’s prejudices and experiences are underscored by his notion that the defendant has “got to burn” (Rose 72). This implies that it is difficult to understand things from a different perspective if an individual is preoccupied with personal difficulties.
Juror 3’s unwillingness to listen to the other jurors’ viewpoints and only agree with those who see it from his point of view highlights his difficulty in reaching a final judgment. This is emphasized by his repeated agreement with people who condemn the youngster, as he remarks, “listen to this man. “He knows what he’s talking about,” and “he’s absolutely right” (Rose 35). His personal bias prohibits him from considering the other Jurors’ perspectives, and he can only agree with those who condemn the defendant. Rose expresses how difficult it is to obtain a final judgment when prejudiced jurors are closed-minded and unwilling to entertain different viewpoints.
Rose emphasizes how difficult it might be to get a final judgment when people demonstrate a lack of interest in the issue and are unwilling to think for themselves. The author argues that individuals unwilling to take the matter seriously endanger the system and make reaching a final conclusion difficult (Rose 72). Juror 7 is uninterested in the jury process because he is more preoccupied with his well-being than honestly debating and discussing the issue (Rose 75). He symbolizes individuals who prioritize self-interest over public responsibility, making it difficult for him to contribute to the ultimate judgment conclusion.
While reaching a final judgment is challenging, Rose says that the jury system necessitates involvement for a verdict to be reached. Juror 8 is one of the few jurors willing to go against the majority and safeguard the democratic process (Rose 12). It is difficult to conclude since Juror 8 is the only one who first perceives this as “grave responsibility” because the “death sentence is mandatory” (Rose 12). He expresses concern for the matter by inciting debate and seeking justice. However, the fact that many other jurors need help understanding the procedure shows that reaching an agreement will be easier with active participation.
Active engagement is what permits the process to grow and makes it simpler to reach a decision. This is seen in the willingness of quiet Jurors such as Juror 2 to engage and contribute to the case, making it simpler to reach a final judgment. This is shown when he interrogates witnesses “about the business about the stab wound and how it was made” (Rose 92). His capacity to participate in debate implies that involvement is required in reaching a final decision. Furthermore, Juror 9’s involvement catches up on the elderly lady’s eyesight, which is the ultimate result. As a result, Rose emphasizes that participation from the jury system is essential for a final decision to be obtained. Furthermore, with participation, reaching an agreement is easier.
In the United States in 1957, juries were designed to reflect a cross-section of society, consisting solely of white men of all ages, values, and opinions. This collision of perspectives, particularly in Twelve Angry Men, automatically leads to disagreement, making it exceedingly difficult for the jury to reach a unanimous conclusion. Juror 11, for example, an immigrant from Germany, evidently valued the democratic system enormously due to his experiences in other undemocratic nations (Rose 14). Other jurors, on the other hand, such as juror 3, have grown to take the democratic system and the opportunity to serve on a jury for granted. Jury 3’s remark shows this when asked about the trial, that “[he] was falling asleep” (Rose 14). Juror 3 has had many past experiences with this “social responsibility,” which has contributed to his lethargy. The audience might interpret this duality as evidence of the jury’s diversity of ideas. As a result, the process of reaching a decision becomes necessarily lengthy.
In conclusion, the author, Rose, emphasizes how difficult it is to get a unanimous decision when jurors have preconceived notions, prejudice, and bigotry and are uninterested in the issue. With detailed and specific examples, the author provides a clear depiction of how jurors 10, 3,9, and 7 prejudice and personal opinions affect the final verdict. He does, however, propose that when Jurors contribute and actively engage, a consensus is eventually obtained.
Work Cited
Rose, Reginald. Twelve Angry Men. 1954.