12 Angry Men Essay
Essay Preview: 12 Angry Men Essay
Report this essay
12 Angry Men Essay
In a crowded jury room in downtown New York, opinions collide as discussion about the innocence of a young boy is decided. The dark and foreboding storm clouds that hang over the heads of the jurors are beginning to lift as time progresses and new facts are presented. One juror is not happy about this stay of execution and is holding fast his opinion of guilty. Juror three, the president of his business, refuses to alter his vote or opinion in any way. Still haunted by his own son, juror three verbally assaults the group with a forceful tone and a taciturn attitude. One of twelve, Reginald Rose created them all from the same pen and ink, and they could all be no more different.
Juror three is angry, bitter man who has spent his entire life forcing his opinions unto others, and has most likely succeeded in this endeavor. As head of his own company, he isnt he used to the resistance
he is getting from the group. To help his arguments, he uses the phrase “know what I mean” at the end of almost everything he says, putting any juror with an opposing argument in an awkward position. As the play wears on and his reliable witnesses were called into question, and more speculation was put upon the table, he begins to become more forceful in his arguments, raising his voice much more often than usual. He firmly believes in the guilt of the accused, no matter what the other jurors say or do. There are other things influencing his opinion other than stubbornness however.
Juror three has a son. He treated his son much like the way the accuseds father treated the accused. He comes right out and says that he was “going to make a man out of him, or bust him in half trying.” In the end, juror threes son struck him across the face, beating his father back for the first time. Juror three states that he “hasnt seen his son in two years,” which implies that his son fled after striking his father.. The accused however did not just beat back at his father. The accused supposedly murdered him. When juror threes son fled home after besting his father, something that has most likely never happened to juror three, juror three was never able to take his revenge on his son. Seeing his chance, he is firmly set on this boys guilt, seeing his own sons guilt in the accused. But it does not stop there.