Juror Nine Essay

In the portrayal of “Twelve angry Men” written by Reginald Rose, the spectator is presented to a jury made up of twelve men. The jurors are being forced to come to an agreement of whether or not a nineteen-year-old boy, who grew up in the slums, is guilty of stabbing his father in the chest with a switchblade knife. Throughout the play an onlooker can see juror nine change from being quiet and reserved into a bold speaker that is key in the outcome of the verdict.
It is obvious that juror nine is quiet and reserved because he only speaks three times in the first act. Another point can be seen from the first few of his lines, where he states his wise opinions. Stage directions like “slowly”(5) and “Quietly”(12) were used to help show that he is not a vocal person. His dialogue is noted with a long pause: “I did. (There is a long …show more content…
In the beginning, Juror nine is obviously not comfortable talking freely among his peers, but as the play goes on the reader can see his come out of his shell little by little. Juror nine’s description that was given to him at the beginning as “A mild gentle old man long since defeated by life and now merely waiting to die,” should be changed to the image of a wise strong voiced man not afraid to voice his thought with others.
The person who reads “Twelve angry men” is not supposed to be persuaded that the young man is or isn’t guilty of the murder of the father, but they are supposed to think more about each juror and which one he or she is. When studying the jurors, the reader will want to say that they are like juror eight, but in all honesty, the reader is most likely one of the others. In this case, if someone relates to juror nine, they shouldn’t feel as bad as someone who relates to juror three because at least juror nine comes out a bolder man with more