Different juror’s have different and many personalities. In the play, “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, there are twelve jurors discussing whether or not the victim that was accused for killing his father is guilty or innocent. They needed to have a unanimous decision. Juror 11 is a middle-aged german refugee from Europe, that then moved to a different country, America. In his country, he has experienced injustice and it wasn’t a great time back in the day, so he moved to America because of the rights and justice they have to offer. For Juror 11, the result of the trial went really well because the young boy, that was accused for killing his father, had a fair trial and democracy was included. In the beginning of the discussion, eleven
…show more content…
During the jury, Juror 3 and Juror 8 are arguing about how the boy is guilty or not. They argue like annoying children that can’t get over themselves, and Juror 11 announces, “... We have a responsibility. This is a remarkable thing about democracy. That we are … notified by mail to come down to this place - and decide on the guilt or innocence of a man; of a man we have not known before. We have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict. This is one of the reasons why we are strong. We should not make it a personal thing” (Rose 44). Wanting everyone to calm down and sit down, they all decide to try to be civil and do another vote. Juror 11 enjoys having evidence on the table, and is eager to know the truth of the victim’s case. He says, “Perhaps if we could see it - this is an important point” (Rose 40). The other curious jurors experiment and try to test the evidence that was given in the complicated trial, and Juror 11 is anxious to know more factual information about this complex case, but is subservient while testing. After they tested the given evidence, it helped them figure out that the evidence turned out to be false. During the whole play, Juror 11 is curious about a lot, and was the bigger person in the
During the jury, Juror 3 and Juror 8 are arguing about how the boy is guilty or not. They argue like annoying children that can’t get over themselves, and Juror 11 announces, “... We have a responsibility. This is a remarkable thing about democracy. That we are … notified by mail to come down to this place - and decide on the guilt or innocence of a man; of a man we have not known before. We have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict. This is one of the reasons why we are strong. We should not make it a personal thing” (Rose 44). Wanting everyone to calm down and sit down, they all decide to try to be civil and do another vote. Juror 11 enjoys having evidence on the table, and is eager to know the truth of the victim’s case. He says, “Perhaps if we could see it - this is an important point” (Rose 40). The other curious jurors experiment and try to test the evidence that was given in the complicated trial, and Juror 11 is anxious to know more factual information about this complex case, but is subservient while testing. After they tested the given evidence, it helped them figure out that the evidence turned out to be false. During the whole play, Juror 11 is curious about a lot, and was the bigger person in the