essay for 12 angry man

12 Angry Men

Table of contents.

• Sample Essay 1
• Sample Essay 2
• Sample Essay 3
• Sample Essay 4
• Sample Essay 5
• Sample Essay 6
• Sample Essay 7
• Sample Essay 8

Sample Essay 1: DOUBT VS CERTAINTY

It is human nature to act on emotionality rather than rationality. The dramatic play, Twelve Angry Men , by Reginald Rose, depicts a seemingly open and shut case based on initially compelling evidence against a boy accused of murder. However, it becomes increasingly clear that individuals are fallible to preconceived, biased beliefs derived from past experiences, social power and rampant prejudices. Therefore, Rose cements the principle that the criminal justice system is founded upon the uncovering doubt, rather than determining guilt. That is, the seeds of doubt is representative of self-reflection on one’s initial judgements, which are subjective and inaccurate. Nevertheless, the playwright imbues an unwavering certainty in the play; individuals who are logical and faithful to legal procedures, in the face of oppression and higher power, can be certain in standing their ground in the jury room.

Rose condemns certainty in judgements which are not founded upon facts but, rather, personal afflictions and generalised prejudice. In fact, the characters in the play demonstrate how judgements based on emotional influence irrelevant to the case at hand prove to be the most certain, despite being misinformed and wholly biased. Juror Three epitomises certainty in projecting his personal experiences on the boy, asserting that he “could see” that the boy was guilty and affirming that he had “never seen a guiltier man in his life”. Rose demonstrates the irony in his confident judgement; rather than “see[ing]”, Juror Three was entirely blindsided in viewing the case through his own lens. Thus, Juror Three fails to objectively judge the case due to his conflicted relationship with his son and wrongfully projects this bias onto the accused boy through the repetition of “it was his father”. In addition, Rose demonstrates how societal bigotry is based on unreasonable attachment and certainty to a belief, which is detrimental to the justice system. Based on the boy’s “type”, Juror Ten makes overarching generalisations on the poorer faction of society through the usage of “these people” or “them”. Through numerous assumptions attributed to the boy through unfounded opinions that “you’ve got to expect that” and how “those people lie”, the playwright epitomises Juror Ten’s intolerance and shortsightedness through the claustrophobic space of the jury room. The juxtaposition of inwardness to the outward city engenders the failure of introspection, resulting in the certainty of prejudiced judgements.

Nevertheless, Rose offers the balanced view that doubting the initial certainty of a case from a logical approach transgresses the emotionality of prejudice. In many aspects, Juror Four represents desirable traits in the justice system. Despite being initially characterised as “a man of wealth and position”, Rose demonstrates how Juror Four’s clear focus to “discuss the facts” mitigates individual biases and emotional attachment to the case, allowing him to resolutely acknowledge that he “now [has] reasonable doubt”. Through Juror Four, Rose represents the higher class, corporate society of 1950s America, embodying many values of active participation and impartial thinking in the legal system. In the same vein, Juror Eleven functions as a voice of reason from a less socially powerful background as a refugee from Europe. In spite of this, Juror Eleven has resolute faith in individuals’ civic responsibilities, advocating that serving in the jury is what is “remarkable about democracy”, making America “strong”. Echoing Juror Four, Juror Eleven demonstrates the admirable ability to segregate emotionality towards the case from the facts, reminding the jurors that “they had nothing to gain or lose by the verdict” and, thus, “should no make it a personal thing.” Therefore, through Juror Four and Juror Eleven, Rose draws parallels between two characters from vastly different backgrounds, which is the unfaltering and certain adherence to rationality and the jury role. Contradictorily, critical thinking manifests doubt and self-reflection, allowing members of the jury to acknowledge that there is “reasonable doubt” in the case.

As the plot unfolds, it becomes evident that absolute certainty and doubt coexist in the courtroom. Rose validates the confident judgements of individuals who are fully conscious of their power and obligations as a juror. Juror Eight displays his certainty as the only one who votes “not guilty”, garnering the support of the audience to implicate the ideals championed by the character. Indeed, as the other jurors deliberate and hold the boy accountable for his silence, Juror Eight reminds the panel that “nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution”, which is a principle entrenched in “the Constitution”. This argument is purposely organised in a logical portrayal, referring back to the entrenched responsibilities of their duty in the justice system. This is in direct contrast to Juror Two, who inadequately and ineloquently rebuts Juror Eight with the stage direct that “he looks around helplessly”, solidifying the audience’s belief that the second juror no longer holds certainty in his judgement and refutes out of stubbornness. Through this juxtaposition, Rose posits that Juror Eight’s certainty in his rightful and rational argument underpins morality and legal fairness. The use of stage direction further endorses Juror Eight’s outward thinking through the recurring motif that he “looked out the window”. Distinguishing himself from the other jurors, Juror Eight erodes the certainty arising from personal bias and instils confidence on critical examination. Thus, Rose embodies the ideal of active citizenship and civic fulfilment in 1950s America, supporting an unparalleled determination in basing judgements according to interactive discussion and self-scrutiny.

Twelve Angry Men is a play which argues the necessity doubt which arises from one’s certainty in their morality and sense of responsibility. In the courtroom, where the border between guilt and innocence is clouded by emotional and personal partiality, Rose champions how justice can be ethically achieved through a focused observation of facts. The characters symbolise certain societal archetypes in American society and reveal inherent human faults under the criminal justice system. However, in the face of discriminatory attitudes and values in post-war America, Rose elevates the conscientiousness of one’s legal power above all.

Sample Essay 2: JUSTICE

The criminal justice system encapsulates many principles in order to achieve justice for the parties involved. Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, is a dramatic play which explores the intricate construct of a just and fair trial. In the context of 1950s America, Rose enquires the ideal of fairness in a society divided by ethnic and social backgrounds. As a narrative develops, it is evident that the unequal power relations of social division interferes with the objectivity of the jury verdict due to personally biased and irrational beliefs. Furthermore, Rose demonstrates how the importance of justice itself is directly dependent to one’s past experiences, resulting in differing perceptions in what constitutes a righteous outcome. Ultimately, the play is a complex insight into the contradictions of justice, arguing that a strict abidance to proving a case beyond “reasonable doubt” is the standard that should be normalised.

As a commentary on post-war America, Rose depicts bigotry as a form of injustice imposed on less fortunate groups in society. 1950s America witnessed the widening of class divisions, resulting in widespread ignorance from individuals in privileged positions. This attitude is embodied by Juror Ten, who applies his personal, discriminative views on the boy, referring to him as a part of the “slums”, who are “common ignorant slob[s]”. This is echoed by Juror Four, who asserts that “The slums are a breeding ground for criminals”. Hence, Juror Four wholly attributes his guilty verdict to the boy’s social status, making a sweeping, blanket statement that lack of financial power is directly correlated to crime. These generalised statements, which are made before examining the facts of the case, are a condemnation of the systematic misinformation perpetuated by ignorant members of society. Rose warns of the consequence of predetermined values, which thereby disregards and disrespects justice. The blatant bias of some jurors is contrasted with the characterisation of Juror Eleven, who speaks out against the lower-class prejudice, understanding that “facts may be coloured by the personalities who present them”. Hence, Juror Eleven reminds the audience that subjective beliefs are often forwarded as truth, despite their highly partial nature. Therefore, through the juxtaposition of various jurors, Rose identifies the root of prejudice; often, stigmatised opinions are automatically assumed to be the truth due to ignorance, resulting in an unequal, unjust society.

Furthermore, Rose reflects on the shortcomings of the criminal justice system, demonstrating that the notion of justice is subjective. Juror Three showcases how an individual’s understanding of justice is dependent on their past experience, allowing them to project their personal conflicts onto others. It is evident in the play that Juror Three’s longstanding resentment stems from the behaviours his son, cursing him as a “rotten kid” who had once “hit [him] in the face”. Juror Three justifies his hatred, stating that he “work[ed] [his] heart out”, implying that he had once been understanding and sympathetic towards his son. Nevertheless, due to the treatment Juror Three had previously endured, his sense of justice is resolved by physical violence and intimidation, stating to that it would be deservedly fair to “belt him one”. On the other hand, Rose depicts Juror Five on the opposite spectrum, relating back to his similar past experiences to the accused, conveying that “I’ve lived in a slum all my life”. Through the lenses of his past, Juror Five reveals that he would rather suppress traumatic memories in “try[ing] to [forget] those things”. This serves as an fascinating parallel to the boy, who also fails to recall events of his father’s death. Hence, Rose utilises the past of experience of Juror Three to demonstrate how individuals perceive achieving justice as a resolution of their personal resentments. Despite this, Juror Five’s experiences allows him and the audience to understand an empathetic definition of justice.

Rose further explores a more nuanced construction of justice, which is judicially intended to be purely focused on facts and separate from external influences. However, Juror Four is one of the last jurors to vote “not guilty”, yet, is the epitome of detached, logical thinking. That is, Juror Four relies on authoritative opinion and relevant evidence, clearly detailing “why”, as the “most damning evidence was given by the woman… who claimed she actually saw the murder”. Here, Juror Four draws from a witness’s testimony to rightfully assert his verdict, unlike the prejudiced attitudes of some jurors present. By providing the context, Rose renders Juror Four’s judgement as entirely plausible. In addition, Juror Four is characterised as rational and level-headed, despite the rising tensions of the deliberations, stating that “we ought to be able to behave like gentlemen”. As the emotionality of the discussion is represented by pathetic fallacy in the heat of the jury room, Juror Four’s calm mannerisms is further portrayed as admirable. Though, notably, Juror Four initially does not believe that the case possesses adequate doubt.  Nevertheless, Rose contends that the idea of “reasonable doubt” is, to an extent, founded upon a level of human empathy. This is conveyed through Juror Nine, who raises the important point that witness testimony is not always reliable, as someone like the old man “like this needs to be recognised”, positing self-interest as a possible motivation for the witness to “lie”. Rose demonstrates that human nature and the ability to view the case empathetically is a necessary skill to recognise “reasonable doubt” in addition to rationality. Thus, only through this can justice be realised.

Twelve Angry Men is a reflection of both societal discourses and human nature. Rose illustrates that the idea of justice stems from individual beliefs and changing values of society. With the rise of social hierarchies and wealth disparities of post-war America, Rose argues that such inequalities are damaging for the criminal justice system. Furthermore, Rose highlights the essentiality for one to remove themselves from unresolved, personal conflicts, as this shapes their understanding of justice. Despite this, Rose demonstrates the delicate balance between detached, factual approaches and compassionate empathy required to scrutinise the existence of “reasonable doubt”.

Sample Essay 3: Twelve Angry Men power

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

English Works

12 Angry Men: Sample essays (justice/jurors)

Sample Plan/Essay

Topic: “ This is one of the reasons we are strong.” Through his play, Twelve Angry Men , Reginald Rose suggest that the judicial system has more strengths than it does flaws.

In an era when America was attempting to find her identity and heal divisions wrought by Cold War hostilities, Reginald Rose, in his didactic play Twelve Angry Men, affirms the dire importance of a diverse jury’s ability to deliver justice to its people. Whilst Rose suggests that the judicial system has its imperfections, he also endorses the benefits he claims are invaluable to society. Initially, as the jurors respond to the task of judging the guilt or innocence of the 16 year old boy, charged with first degree murder of his father, shortcomings are flagrantly obvious. However, owing to the integrity and perspicacity of the 8 th juror and his insistence the principles of justice and reasonable doubt, he orchestrates a careful examination of the circumstantial evidence. As Rose clearly shows, honouring these safeguards not only empowers individuals to engage in the judicial process, but acts as the basis for a just verdict which reflects a decent, caring democratic society; diversity may hinder, but in this case it can facilitate also justice. Thus, the fundamental mechanisms of the process are what makes the system “strong”.

The flaws in the judicial system owing to the 12 “angry men”

Rose depicts a judicial system that is essentially flawed because of its dependence upon twelve “angry” Caucasian men who possess different views, personalities and personal agendas.  Specifically, and through the use of a real-time deliberation process, the playwright emphasizes how the integrity of the judicial system is undermined when the jurors arrive at the table clothed in their own personal experiences and prejudices. (quote from the 10 th )

Rose deliberately constructs a parallel story for the 3rd Juror, whose broken relationship with his son, influences his decision. In the stage directions he notes how he is reeling from the pain of being “stabbed in the chest” which foreshadows his revenge agenda and his rigid, patriarchal view of parenting.  Throughout the play, there are repetitive references to the “knife”, which will be critical to the evidence, but in this case the stab wounds symbolically refer to the 3 rd juror’s raw and personal emotions.   Knife…

Climate of prejudice; a fault that Rose implies was a pressing issue in trials conducted during the post-war era of McCarthy-style hysteria.

Another shortcoming is the legal competence of the jurors, many of whom lack the aptitude to carry out their duties because they have a distorted or deficient understanding of their legal duties. The meek 2nd Juror’s fragmented speech conveyed through Rose’s use of ellipses and indicated in the stage directions as “nervous”, suggests he fears voicing his opinion because of his relative inexperience as a juror. As a result, he “just thinks the boy is guilty” and cannot express his reasoning, intimidated by the louder voices that dominate the early stages of the play. From the beginning, the 12th Juror, who believes that “the whole thing is unimportant”, is fixated on the “view”, the “impression” and the “drive” of the lawyers, a manifestation of his embodiment as post war materialism .  The game of the tic-tac toe also becomes a figurative manifestation of their indifference as is the “doodling”. Likewise, the mindless whistling of the 7 th juror and the change of his vote to “not guilty” because he has “had enough” highlights his obvious apathy. Rose suggests this attitude, which is compounded by the heat, is counterproductive to the notion of active citizenship.

The strengths of the system because of the emphasis on the safeguards of justice

In order to overcome these innate limitations, Rose suggests that the emphasis on and adherence to the safeguards are essential assets to the deliberation process. The power of the process lies within its ability to expose their “personal prejudice” in a “locked room ”, where the men cannot escape scrutiny. The locked room also becomes a metaphoric representation of the men’s closed minds that are gradually enlightened as the trial proceeds. Furthermore, Rose uses the “harsh white light” as a device to reveal the men’s limitations, confirming that the process contributes to greater self-awareness.

8 th juror: embodiment and “architect” of justice

In this regard, the role of the 8 th juror, who believes the boy deserves the courtesy of “talking” about the evidence before arriving at hasty assumptions, is critical to the exposure of injustices and prejudices . He is the juror who most faithfully follows the  disembodied voice of the judge and his reminder that the jurors must deliberate “honestly and thoughtfully”and sift “fact” from “fancy”.   By focusing on the concept of reasonable doubt, he exposes the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the eye-witnesses and urges the jurors to question the “circumstantial evidence”. His probing casts doubt and his question to the jurors, “What if the facts are wrong”, also serves to whet the audience’s curiosity.

The 9th Juror, whose experience derived from his age and experience is vital, asserts that no one has a “monopoly on the truth” as “coincidences are possible.” As such, the jurors are forced to question the reliability of the evidence such as the psychiatrist’s report which indicates that the defendant had “strong homicidal tendencies,” only to conclude that these tendencies don’t always manifest as action; likewise the threat “I’m going to kill you” which becomes a humiliating experience for the third juror.  The fact that the old man could not have physically walked to the door to verify the identity of escaping person and the absence of the woman’s glasses all conspire to plant doubt.

8 th juror: empowers diversity rather than conformity

In the right context and circumstances, Rose also suggests that diversity, a hallmark of democracy, can hinder, but can also facilitate justice. The gradual self-awareness and enlightenment of many of the jurors helps the collective team more effectively scrutinise the evidence. In many ways, such diversity of provides a plethora of contexts for identification which in turn helps the jurors gain an insight into the flaws of the evidence. The 5 th Juror’s “slum background” and upbringing empower him to challenge the angle of the knife wound and the 9 th Juror’s age creates doubt in the reliability of the old man’s testimony. He empathetically observes [2]   that the man’s need to be “quoted just once” provides motivation to lie. The painter’s experience of apartments near an el-train also reveal the difficulty a witness would have hearing the boy. The 4 th juror recognises the woman’s impossibility of seeing clearly without glasses – another metaphoric representation of how the “facts” become increasingly blurred and murky.

Furthermore, minority groups are enfranchised as evident through the middle-European 11 th Juror, who reminds audiences that people “entitled to their unpopular opinions.” The notion that “there are no secrets in a jury room” holds its ground to both ensure that all voices are heard but also that extreme views are unveiled. Consequently, the 10 th Juror is silenced and “defeated” as them men “turn their backs” on him acting as a powerful reminder that in seeking consensus in society, we must reject the “darkening” threat posed by venomous views.

8 th juror: symbolism of democratic, social harmony

As the juror’s are freed from the “locked room” and the cathartic rain ceases to fall, the boy and thus the men are liberated by the civilising power of democracy. Indeed, in an act of social harmony, the 8 th Juror’s gesture of helping the 3rd Juror with his coat demonstrates the potential for fractured sides to find consensus in a society attempting to find her identity post war From the liberating ability of the process, Rose celebrates democracy as a powerful and enlightening asset and is accordingly the ultimate strength of the jury system.

Through the 8th juror’s gaze through the window to the New York Skyline, Rose suggests that the delivery of justice and vigilance is important to ensure the protection of democratic values and to secure justice for those most in need of it protection. Therefore, a focus on the safeguards yields benefits beyond the achievement of justice. The process can empower the disempowered and act as a resounding model for a democratic society.  It is the reason we “are strong”.

Therefore, a focus on the safeguards yields benefits beyond the achievement of justice. The process can empower the disempowered and act as a resounding model for a democratic society.  Through the Foreman’s “Slattery” metaphor, Rose suggests that the democratic foundation of the system is not reliant on individuals, but rather endorses the collaboration of diverse voices and experiences they bring to the “scarred table”. Indeed, self aware individuals prove useful in directing the discussion away from extreme and potentially divisive views.

In an era which was plagued by “Cold war” mentalities of relentless suspicion, Rose acknowledges that the jury system is inherently flawed. However, the play serves as a source of inspiration to the strength of the judicial process should the principles of justice be appropriately upheld. Ultimately the concept of reasonable doubt affords the best protection against the miscarriage of justice. Only when the safeguards of democracy are consciously followed, can any reward be in sight. Rose serves us with a timely reminder that we must accept our civic duties and remain self-aware and “watchful” for those who attempt to hinder the system in order witness what “makes us strong”.

‘Twelve Angry Men is less about guilt or innocence than about reasonable doubt.’ Discuss

Set in 1950s New York with a backdrop of post McCarthyism hysteria, Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men explores the deliberations of a jury in a homicide trial. Although the McCarthyist witch-hunts caused a legacy of suspicion, Rose suggests that ‘reasonable doubt’ remains the best safeguard of justice. The audience are thus taken into the customary black box scenario and witness the difficulties faced by the twelve individuals when attempting to follow the judge’s instruction to “deliberate honestly and thoughtfully” as prejudice and experiences cloud their judgements. According to David Mamet’s introduction it is the fact that each individual interprets the standard of ‘reasonable doubt’ differently that is “the genius of the trial.” By staging the heated discussion, Rose exposes the difficulties that surround the legal concept of ‘reasonable doubt and its application. Eventually, if applied rigorously, Rose suggests that it is the best mean of protecting a person’s innocence. If applied insightfully, it can also expose a person’s bigoted attitude and distorted personal agendas.

Rose characterises the 8 th juror as a spokesperson for justice because he foregrounds the concept of reasonable doubt; Rose thereby suggests that this provdes the best safeguard of the legal system. The fact that he cannot “send a boy off to die, without talking about it first.” Forces the other jurors to carefully consider witness testimonies. Rose’s use of anonymous numbers depersonalises the jury members to show that their personalties should not play a factor. Ironically, the 8 th juror seems to be the only one who best abides by this nameless system. Rose thereby suggests that the emphasis must be on the boy and the irrefutable nature of his crime. Moreover, the 8 th juror’s focus on ‘reasonable doubt’ leads to insightful questioning of the eye-witnesses; the old man could not have heard the boy yell over the sound of the elevated train or made it to his front door in time, and “the woman’s eyesight is in question.” As the 8 th juror exposes the inconsistencies and false assumption associated with the evidence, Rose poses the importance of the idea that ‘reasonable doubt’ could save someone’s life.

Rose sets up the 8 th juror as a contrasting voice of dissent in order to expose the extent to which the other jurors are controlled by their preconceived notions of guilt and innocence. Despite his insistence to scrutinise the evidence, other jurors still base their votes on biases, attitudes and personal experiences. The 3 rd juror, who says, “The man’s a dangerous killer” and the 10 th , who remarks “You know what you’re dealing with” may be the most vociferous in their accusations of the boy’s guilt and it is this emphasis on guilt that threatens a fair trial. The locked room appears as a metaphoric representation of their “locked minds” and their prejudice, which may lead to a miscarriage of justice. Hence, owing to preconceived biases, jurors are too quick to arrive at hasty conclusions and are less willing to accept the apparent doubt in the circumstantial evidence.

With an emphasis on reasonable doubt, the trial changes direction and the flaws in the evidence become increasingly apparent, making it difficult for many jurors to insist on the boy’s guilt. At the exposition of the play, almost all the jurors are convinced of the defendant’s guilt. The 10 th juror flippantly states, “A kid kills his father. Bing! Just like that,” evincing that there is no element of doubt in his mind. Similarly, the 6 th juror comments, “There’s not a doubt in the world.” However as the play progresses, doubt slowly creeps into the minds of the jurors as evidence is cross-examined. The tension is diffused as ‘the sound of the rain’ is heard in the silence. The storm and the ‘flickering of harsh white light’ could be interpreted as symbols of reality and truth. Afterwards, the 4 th juror, one of the most logical and methodical jurors, (“Let’s stick to the facts.”) eventually votes ‘not guilty’ stating he now has a ‘reasonable doubt’. Likewise, the 11 th juror switches his vote as he “now has a reasonable doubt in his mind.” The jurors are aware of the importance of investigating the evidence and henceforth acknowledge that their prior certainties may have faults.

The 8 th juror, through a stage direction that mimics his state of mind and are shown that “this is the problem that has been tormenting him. He does not know and he never will.”

** Based on ‘reasonable doubt’, a verdict of ‘not guilty’ is reached, which Rose suggests is the only correct verdict under these circumstances. AS the evidence is not conclusive, the jurors are not able to confidently prove the boy’s guilt. Critical to the “not guilty” verdict is the capitulation of the 10 th and 3 rd jurors owing to their vociferous opposition. The 10 th juror concedes that he has been outmanoeuvred by the “smart bastards” precisely because he must recognise that his bigoted misconceptions cannot prove the boy’s guilt. Likewise, the 3 rd is forced to recognise the degree to which his personal vendetta interfered with the decision-making process. The reminder that “he’s not your boy”, finally shames him  into concurring with the ‘not guilty’ verdict. The deconstruction of these obstacles finally paves the way for an honest and just outcome. The unlocking of the door and the knife in the table – which was critical to the fact-finding process – suggest that prejudice has been dispelled. Thus Rose would suggest they reach a fair and reasonable verdict.

It is unequivocal that the legal drama Twelve Angry men imparts the notion that ‘reasonable doubt’ is a portentous part of America’s judicial system and it is of greater concern than the truth. Rose demonstrates this though the jury, a microcosm representation of a cross-section of America, who works together to form a just, unanimous decision. The variety of symbolic techniques show how Rose supports the ‘not guilty’ verdict and his view that ‘reasonable doubt’, if applied rigorously and insightfully, can expose personals aspects and agendas that may conspire to affect a fair trial. Ultimately, Rose reveals he is less concerned about the guilt or innocence of the accused but that a vote of ‘reasonable doubt’ is better than wrongly putting an innocent man to death and acts as a safeguard in the justice system.

• Return to Summary: literary Devices
• Return to Notes: Article on 12 Angry Men
• A sample/ plan essay on Twelve Angry Men

For Sponsorship and Other Enquiries

Keep in touch.

Twelve Angry Men

Reginald rose, ask litcharts ai: the answer to your questions.

Welcome to the LitCharts study guide on Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men . Created by the original team behind SparkNotes, LitCharts are the world's best literature guides.

Twelve Angry Men: Introduction

Twelve angry men: plot summary, twelve angry men: detailed summary & analysis, twelve angry men: themes, twelve angry men: quotes, twelve angry men: characters, twelve angry men: symbols, twelve angry men: theme wheel, brief biography of reginald rose.

Historical Context of Twelve Angry Men

Other books related to twelve angry men.

• Full Title: Twelve Angry Men
• When Written: 1954 (teleplay); 1955 (theatrical play)
• Where Written: New York City
• When Published: 1955
• Literary Period: Late Modernism
• Genre: Drama
• Setting: A jury room, the present
• Climax: Juror Eight persuades all the other jurors except Three to vote “not guilty.” Three confronts Eight with a knife in a silent power play. The climax is resolved as Three surrenders and votes “not guilty.”
• Antagonist: Prejudice and bias exhibited primarily in the characters Three and Ten

Extra Credit for Twelve Angry Men

Twelve Angry Jurors. Contemporary productions of Reginald Rose’s play often change the title to “Twelve Angry Jurors” to allow for gender-neutral casting. The original play does not address prejudices and biases related to sexism, but the play intentionally strives for timelessness by instructing that the jurors be dressed and cast to belong in “the present.”

Adaptations for the big screen. The teleplay was revised by Rose for a 1957 movie that received three Academy Award nominations. A 1997 movie version was also released, demonstrating the story’s timelessness.

Twelve Angry Men

53 pages • 1 hour read

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more. For select classroom titles, we also provide Teaching Guides with discussion and quiz questions to prompt student engagement.

Act Summaries & Analyses

Character Analysis

Symbols & Motifs

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Discussion Questions

Twelve Angry Men is set in the summer of 1957 and heavily implies that the accused is a part of the African American community in Harlem. Consider the role of segregation and racial attitudes more broadly in the United States during this time. How does this historical context shape the trial and various jurors’ attitudes toward it?

Tension between fathers and sons is one of the key themes in the play. How does the 3rd Juror’s relationship with his estranged son reflect the relationship between the accused and his own father? What do these two relationships tell us about problematic family dynamics within the play, and how do they relate to the play’s wider themes?

The 5th Juror appears to be the only juror with direct, lived experience of the Harlem community and the poverty within it. What role does the 5th Juror play throughout the jury’s deliberations, and what insight does he give readers into the social world of the accused?

Don't Miss Out!

Access Study Guide Now

Featured Collections

Books on Justice & Injustice

View Collection

Dramatic Plays

True Crime & Legal

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Entertainment

Essay Samples on 12 Angry Men

The concept of perception and poor relationship in 12 angry men.

“12 Angry Men' centres around a jury's thoughts in a capital homicide case. A 12-man jury is sent to start thoughts in the primary degree murder preliminary of an 18-year-elderly person blamed in the wounding demise for his dad, where a liable decision implies a...

• 12 Angry Men
• Relationship

12 Angry Men Movie Directed by Sidney Lumet

12 Angry men is a 1957 movie directed by Sidney Lumet and produced by Henry Fonda, Reginald Rose. The duration of the movie is 96 minutes and the genre is crime, drama, and legal drama. The main purpose of the movie is it talks about...

• Movie Summary

Sidney Lumet's Movie '12 Angry Men'

12 Angry Men is 60 years of age today a splendid if the somewhat stale result of now is the ideal time. The 12 customary white men who assemble in Sidney Lumet's movie has the intensity of deciding a definitive destiny of high school road...

12 Angry Men Movie Review: Power Of Negotiation

In 12 Angry Men, the jury presented is deciding whether an eighteen-year-old kid is guilty or innocent for the murder of his father. The jury consists of 12 men, who are to rule over the decision. When the 12 men enter into the chambers to...

• Movie Review

12 Angry Men As A Timeless Classic

The 1957 film titled, “12 Angry Men”, gives a behind-the-scenes view into the American legal justice system. “12 Angry Men” was directed by Sidney Lumet and was written by American film writer Reginald Rose. The film is made in black and white and features famous...

Stressed out with your paper?

Consider using writing assistance:

• 100% unique papers
• 3 hrs deadline option

12 Angry Men: How Each Member of the Group Can Change the Group Dynamics

The roles of individual group members within a larger organization and the impact that each member has on the others is complex - and a critical part of organizational analysis. It is perhaps surprising that the 1957 film classic 12 Angry Men has endured as...

• Socialization

12 Angry Men: The Power of Coalition Building in Negotiations

In 12 Angry Men, the jury presented is deciding whether a eighteen year old kid is guilty or innocent for the murder of his father. The jury consists of 12 men, who are to rule over the decision. When the 12 men enter into the...

• Negotiation

The Basic Information and Analysis of the Movie 12 Angry Men

Basic Information about the Movie: Name: 12 Angry men Director: Sidney Lumet Producer: Henry Fonda and Reginald Rose Story By: Reginald Rose Year of Release: 10th April, 1957 (USA) The Time Duration: 96 minutes Genre: Crime, Drama, Legal Drama Language: English Movie’s thesis/Purpose: It discusses...

Exemplification of Social Psychology Theories in the Film "12 Angry Men"

We can get lot of social psychology theories example in the film “12 Angry Men”. Released in 1957 is a courtroom drama film directed by Sidney Lumet. It tells the story of 12 jurors who were assigned to decide the guilt or innocence of an...

• Social Psychology

The Analysis Of The Movie "12 Angry Men"

In the United States criminal justice system, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable count. Our law requires the jury to exonerate the defendant unless swayed by substantial evidence that deems the guilt of the defendant. Many times, juries come across...

Best topics on 12 Angry Men

1. The Concept of Perception and Poor Relationship in 12 Angry Men

2. 12 Angry Men Movie Directed by Sidney Lumet

3. Sidney Lumet’s Movie ’12 Angry Men’

4. 12 Angry Men Movie Review: Power Of Negotiation

5. 12 Angry Men As A Timeless Classic

6. 12 Angry Men: How Each Member of the Group Can Change the Group Dynamics

7. 12 Angry Men: The Power of Coalition Building in Negotiations

8. The Basic Information and Analysis of the Movie 12 Angry Men

9. Exemplification of Social Psychology Theories in the Film “12 Angry Men”

10. The Analysis Of The Movie “12 Angry Men”

• Bridge to Terabithia
• Film Analysis
• Hidden Figures
• And The Band Played On
• Spirited Away
• A Beautiful Mind
• Patch Adams

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

12 Angry Men

By reginald rose.

• 12 Angry Men Summary

The play is set in a New York City Court of Law jury room in 1957. The play opens to the empty jury room, and the Judge’s voice is heard, giving a set of final instructions to the jurors. We learn that this is a murder case and that, if found guilty, the mandatory sentence for the accused is the death penalty. After these instructions, the jurors enter.

The men file in and decide to take a short break before deliberating. They complain that the room is hot and without air-conditioning; even the fan doesn’t work. All the jurors presume the obvious guilt of the defendant, whom we learn has been accused of killing his father. Eventually, the twelve sit down and a vote is taken. All of the jurors vote “guilty,” except for the 8th Juror , who votes “not guilty,” which, due to the requirement of a unanimous jury, forces them to discuss the case.

The jurors react violently against this dissenting vote. Ultimately, they decide to go around the table, explaining why they believe the boy to be guilty, in hopes of convincing 8th Juror.

Through this discussion we learn the following facts about the case: an old man living beneath the boy and his father testified that he heard upstairs a fight, the boy shouting, “I’m gonna kill you,” a body hitting the ground, and then he saw the boy running down the stairs. The boy claimed he had been at the movies while his father was murdered, but couldn’t remember the name of the movies or who was in them. A woman living across the street testified that she saw the boy kill his father through the windows of a passing elevated train. The boy had, that night, had an argument with his father, which resulted in the boy’s father hitting him twice. Finally, the boy has an extensive list of prior offenses, including trying to slash another teenager with a knife.

There is a strong rallying against the defendant. 3rd Juror compares him to his own son, with whom he was estranged, and 10th Juror reveals strong racist tendencies against the defendant.

When a discussion about the murder weapon, which was identified as the knife purchased by the defendant, a “one-of-a-kind” knife, begins, 8th Juror surprises the others by presenting an identical knife he had purchased in a pawn shop two blocks from where the boy lived a few nights prior, shattering the claim that the knife was so unique and identifiable.

8th Juror makes a proposition that the other eleven of them could vote, and if all of them voted “not guilty,” he would not stand alone and would go along with their guilty verdict. They agree to this and vote by secret ballot. The vote is 10 “guilty” votes and 1 “not guilty” vote, and so the deliberation continues.

Immediately, the jurors turn on 5th Juror , accusing him of having changed his vote out of sympathy for the boy. 9th Juror stands and admits to having changed his vote because he’d like to hear the arguments out.

8th Juror calls into question the validity of the testimony of the old man living downstairs. 9th Juror provides the possibility that the old man was only testifying to feel important. 8th Juror concludes by saying that even if he did hear him say, “I’m gonna kill you,” that very well could be taken out of context as just a figure of speech. With this 5th Juror changes his vote to “not guilty,” and the vote is 9-3 in favor of guilty.

After another heated discussion which raises the question of why the boy would have returned home, after killing his father, they take another vote. This time, 5th, 8th, 9th, and 11th vote “not guilty,” and the deliberation continues.

After a brief argument, 8th Juror brings into question whether or not the downstairs neighbor, an old man who had suffered a stroke and could only walk slowly, could have gotten to the door to see the boy run down the stairs in fifteen seconds, as he had testified. 8th Juror recreates the floor plan of the apartment, while 2nd Juror times him, and they conclude that he would not have been able to reach his door in fifteen seconds.

3rd Juror reacts violently to this and ends up attacking 8th Juror, shouting, “God damn it! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him.” 8th Juror asks, “You don’t really mean you’ll kill me, do you?” proving his earlier point about how people say, “I’ll kill you,” when they don’t really mean it.

Act II resumes in the same moment we left off with in Act I. After everything calms down, the jurors resume deliberations. Another vote is taken, and the jury is now six to six. They take a break. During this break, it begins to rain outside. Also, they are able to turn the fan on, cooling off the room.

When deliberations resume, 8th Juror attempts to break apart the testimony of the arresting police officer that the defendant was unable to name the movies that he had claimed to have seen that evening. He asserts that possibly the defendant just forgot the names of the films and who was in them “under great emotional distress.”

Upon further discussion about the switchblade, it becomes questionable whether or not the defendant would have made the stab wound, “down and in,” which would be contrary to his knowledge and experience with how to use such a knife.

The jurors take another vote, and it is now nine to three, all but 3rd, 4th, and 10th Juror are in favor of ‘not guilty.’ This launches 10th Juror in a massive bigoted rant, which ends with 4th Juror scolding him back into his seat.

9th Juror calls into question the eyewitness testimony of the woman living across the street, as she wore glasses but chose not to wear them in court, calling into question whether or not she would have been wearing them in bed, when she saw the murder through her window.

Now, the vote is 11 to 1, and 3rd Juror stands alone. At first, he stands firm, saying that he will be the holdout to make this a hung jury. He launches himself into a final massive rant against the boy that descends into nonsense. 8th and 4th Jurors make a short final plea, and 3rd Juror finally concedes, saying “All right. Not guilty.” The Foreman informs the Guard that they have reached a verdict, and the Jurors leave the courtroom.

12 Angry Men Questions and Answers

The Question and Answer section for 12 Angry Men is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel.

In the play 12 Angry Men, how do things change when the evidence (knife) is brought into the jury room for examination?

This question sounds similar to your last one:

When a discussion about the murder weapon, which was identified as the knife purchased by the defendant, a “one-of-a-kind” knife, begins, 8th Juror surprises the others by...

The River and the source

What is the title and author of the book you are referring to?

Why is it significant that Holden shows Jane Allie´s baseball mitt?

Showing Jane the baseball mitt was significant because she was the only person he'd ever shown it to.

She was the only one, outside my family, that I ever showed Allie's baseball mitt to , with all the poems written on it. She'd never met Allie or...

Study Guide for 12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men study guide contains a biography of Reginald Rose, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.

• About 12 Angry Men
• 12 Angry Men Video
• Character List

Essays for 12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men essays are academic essays for citation. These papers were written primarily by students and provide critical analysis of 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose.

• Critical Elements of Twelve Angry Men
• Two Angry Social Classes
• The Importance Of Justice In Relations To Past Experiences
• Twelve Angry Men as an Allegory
• An Objective Perspective: Logos, Ethos, and Juror Four

Lesson Plan for 12 Angry Men

• About the Author
• Study Objectives
• Common Core Standards
• Introduction to 12 Angry Men
• Relationship to Other Books
• Bringing in Technology
• Notes to the Teacher
• Related Links
• 12 Angry Men Bibliography

Wikipedia Entries for 12 Angry Men

• Introduction
• Characters and story
• Productions
• Screen adaptations
• Awards and nominations

Home — Essay Samples — Entertainment — 12 Angry Men — 12 Angry Men: Comparison Of The Play And The Film Adaptation

12 Angry Men: Comparison of The Play and The Film Adaptation

• Categories: 12 Angry Men American Literature Drama

About this sample

Words: 1350 |

Published: Aug 6, 2021

Words: 1350 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, 12 angry men: play vs movie, the evidence, stage directions, characters and their actions.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Entertainment Literature

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1725 words

1 pages / 381 words

2 pages / 853 words

4 pages / 1710 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on 12 Angry Men

In "Twelve Angry Men," Juror Nine emerges as a powerful figure who embodies the transformative power of empathy. His ability to challenge preconceived notions, unveil the power of perspective, and foster a more inclusive [...]

12 Angry Men, a 1957 film directed by Sidney Lumet, is a powerful depiction of the American legal system and the dynamics of a jury deliberation. The film focuses on twelve jurors who are tasked with reaching a unanimous [...]

Prejudice is a pervasive and detrimental societal issue that has the potential to influence decision-making processes in various contexts, including the criminal justice system. In the classic film "12 Angry Men," the character [...]

In the riveting drama "12 Angry Men," Juror 3 emerges as a central figure whose stubbornness and personal biases threaten to derail the deliberations of the jury. As the main antagonist, Juror 3's intense and aggressive demeanor [...]

This play has assisted me to form a greater appreciation of the best and worst aspects of human nature. Through creative use of literary techniques, the play unfolds to delve into themes of prejudice, responsibility, justice, [...]

Literary devices are a foundation for any written work, they provide a connection from the writer to the reader through language. Details emphasized through literary devices enhance the conflict within the text and often serve [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

12 Angry Men: Overview and Analysis Analytical Essay

The issues of injustice and possibilities to follow the wrong conclusions during the jurors’ analyzing the case in the court can be considered as the most controversial aspects of the process which results can be irreversible. All these problems are revealed in the movie 12 Angry Men directed by William Friedkin which was released in 1997.

However, in spite of the main theme of legitimacy discussed in the movie, some important aspects of the social psychology can be discussed using the examples of relations and interactions between the characters of the movie. The main two aspects which should be effectively analyzed are the problem of stereotypes and the question of the successful leadership.

The plot of the movie is based on the story of a young Spanish-American boy who is accused in killing his father, and the main task of the jurors is to decide whether he is guilty or innocent. The jurors have their own personal vision of the case and are inclined to accuse the boy without paying much attention to the discussion of the case’s details.

However, there is Juror # 8 who does not want to follow the viewpoint of the majority of the group and insists on the further detailed analysis of the case ( 12 angry men, 1997).

The peculiarities of the manner to persuade the public and lead the persons’ to making their own right conclusions which is demonstrated by Juror # 8 can be discussed in the field of the social psychology with references to its main aspects along with the group’s inclination to follow the stereotypes and bias.

The main difficulty which complicated the jurors’ clear vision of the problem can be discussed as the progress of stereotypes in their attitudes to the people. While discussing the peculiar features of the case, the jurors focus on their beliefs about definite groups of people and the possible characteristics which can be used to describe their behavior.

Thus, accusing the boy in murdering his father, the jurors reveal their stereotypes about those people who grow in poverty in slums ( 12 angry men, 1997). Following these stereotypes, the jurors are inclined to wrongly interpret the boy’s possible actions with references to their vision of the case according to their stereotypes.

Moreover, the situation is also complicated by the combination of stereotypes and discriminative views against the representatives of the minority groups (Franzoi, 2002).

Nevertheless, Juror # 8 is not so categorical in his discussion of the issue as the other jurors influenced by their own stereotyped visions. According to the aspects of the social psychology, it is possible to speak about the juror’s revealing the effective leader’s behavior. The leader is a person who can motivate the others to reach the goals and achieve high results (Franzoi, 2002).

The behavior of Juror # 8 can be considered as the behavior of the task-oriented leader. In spite of the fact his leadership is not open and not formal, Juror # 8 is successful in controlling the situation of the discussion with the help of different conversation tactics and a series of thought-provoking questions.

Juror # 8 realizes the principles of the coaching leadership with focusing on creating the supportive atmosphere during the discussion.

The principles of social psychology are regularly realized by people in their everyday interactions. That is why different aspects of the social psychology can be involved in the analysis of the characters’ behavior and actions in movies, novels, and shows.

12 angry men . (1997). [Video] Web.

Franzoi, S. (2002). Social Psychology . USA: Mcgraw-Hill College.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, June 10). 12 Angry Men: Overview and Analysis. https://ivypanda.com/essays/12-angry-men/

"12 Angry Men: Overview and Analysis." IvyPanda , 10 June 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/12-angry-men/.

IvyPanda . (2019) '12 Angry Men: Overview and Analysis'. 10 June.

IvyPanda . 2019. "12 Angry Men: Overview and Analysis." June 10, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/12-angry-men/.

1. IvyPanda . "12 Angry Men: Overview and Analysis." June 10, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/12-angry-men/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "12 Angry Men: Overview and Analysis." June 10, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/12-angry-men/.

• "Twelve Angry Men" Movie-Based Play
• Controversies Surrounding Professional Jurors
• Jurors 1 and 5 in “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald
• One Not-Guilty Vote in “Twelve Angry Men” Film
• Rhetoric in "12 Angry Men" Film by Sidney Lumet
• «Twelve Angry Men» Synopsis
• The "12 Angry Men" Film by Sidney Lumet
• Leadership in “12 Angry Men”
• "12 Angry Men" by Sidney Lumet Film Analysis
• Jury Deliberations in "Twelve Angry Men" by Rose Reginald
• Suicide Prevention in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
• Assessments of Intelligence and Achievement Tests
• Achievement and Intelligence
• The virtual and interactive: Inter-subjectivity in Games
• Bibliotherapy as a Psychological Approach