Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose should definitely be read in schools. The play portrays a jury of twelve men discussing a murder case of a sixteen-year-old boy who is accused of stabbing his father. Prior to the play, the boy’s trial occurred. The play opens with the jury going in to discuss the verdict. At first, eleven men choose “guilty” while one man stands alone. Rose writes an insightful story of communication and argument between twelve different men, all with their own opinions and beliefs. Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose is an insightful story that will teach students fairness and morality, awareness of the world around them, and independence. By reading Twelve Angry Men, kids in schools can learn the important moral lessons of fairness and morality. Throughout the play, Rose makes readers feel for the boy and question his guilt, showcasing the importance of second chances. Writing someone off after one glance is never right, as Juror 10 did, “Now, you're not going to tell us that we're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I've lived among 'em all my life.
…show more content…
Despite comments from other jurors, "Well, what's there to talk about? Eleven men here agree. Nobody had to think twice about it, except you" (Juror 7, page 12), Juror 8 still stood his ground. He didn't give in to peer pressure by accepting what the other jurors were telling him. Although the other jurors were already convinced of the their verdict before the discussion even began, Juror 8 knew he needed enough solid proof. Juror 3, along with others, didn't want to challenge the previous evidence, "I really think this is one of those open and shut things. They proved it a dozen different ways. Would you like me to list them for you?" (11). The play teaches readers to question what they have been told instead of following the
Despite comments from other jurors, "Well, what's there to talk about? Eleven men here agree. Nobody had to think twice about it, except you" (Juror 7, page 12), Juror 8 still stood his ground. He didn't give in to peer pressure by accepting what the other jurors were telling him. Although the other jurors were already convinced of the their verdict before the discussion even began, Juror 8 knew he needed enough solid proof. Juror 3, along with others, didn't want to challenge the previous evidence, "I really think this is one of those open and shut things. They proved it a dozen different ways. Would you like me to list them for you?" (11). The play teaches readers to question what they have been told instead of following the