The play "12 Angry Men" by Reginald Rose is an all-time American classic. The play is about a jury set to decide the fate of a teenager who allegedly stabbed his father to death. These 12 men have this young man's life in their hands and things get heated quickly when not everyone agrees that the boy is guilty. The predominant theme of the play is prejudice, defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge.'" Seeing the 12 different jurors with different life experiences interpreting the same evidence and supposed facts of a case make the play a fascinating read. The play opens with a judge sending the jurors to "to sit down to try and separate the facts from the fancy."
…show more content…
The 4th juror is a very fact-based, albeit conceited, man, and when presented with facts that put his evidence in question he accepts it. The biggest proof to his character is that unlike the rest of the jurors who adamantly believe the boy in guilty, he doesn’t get angry at those arguing with him. He believes himself to be right, and is merely entertaining the idea that he may be wrong, as far as he is concerned, the evidence points right at the boy.
The final and perhaps most biased juror we are introduced to, is juror number three. While he did not grow up with "them" in the slums, he had his own personal experience with kids and violence, as he accidentalty lets slip:
"It's the kids. The way they are—you know? They don't listen. (Bitter) I've got a kid. When he was eight years old, he ran away from a fight. I saw him. I was so ashamed, I told him right out, "I'm gonna make a man out of you or I'm gonna bust you up into little pieces trying." When he was fifteen he hit me in the face. He's big, you know. I haven't seen him in three years. Rotten kid! You work your heart out.... [Looks away
The 4th juror is a very fact-based, albeit conceited, man, and when presented with facts that put his evidence in question he accepts it. The biggest proof to his character is that unlike the rest of the jurors who adamantly believe the boy in guilty, he doesn’t get angry at those arguing with him. He believes himself to be right, and is merely entertaining the idea that he may be wrong, as far as he is concerned, the evidence points right at the boy.
The final and perhaps most biased juror we are introduced to, is juror number three. While he did not grow up with "them" in the slums, he had his own personal experience with kids and violence, as he accidentalty lets slip:
"It's the kids. The way they are—you know? They don't listen. (Bitter) I've got a kid. When he was eight years old, he ran away from a fight. I saw him. I was so ashamed, I told him right out, "I'm gonna make a man out of you or I'm gonna bust you up into little pieces trying." When he was fifteen he hit me in the face. He's big, you know. I haven't seen him in three years. Rotten kid! You work your heart out.... [Looks away