Twelve Angry Men Argumentative Essay Example

of a Jury to the system, rather than heir verdict alone.In contrast, the play also highlights potential flaws in the Jury system, where prejudice obstructs the pursuit of Justice. This is supported by the 3rd Juror's reluctance to change his Initial 'guilty verdict and the manner In which he characterises, 'kids...

nowadays. Angry! Hostile! '. This view is held because the 3rd Juror's sees that his strained relationship with his son is mirrored in the relationship between the defendant and his father He wishes to punish the young boy for the ain his own son has inflicted upon him.He 'personally wants it, not because of the facts'. This motivation consequently impacts his ability to make a rational, emotionally detached decision.

Rose further conveys to the audience that Irrational prejudice and justice is not compatible through the bigoted generalisations made regarding the defendant. Early on it is established that the youth on trial is from the slums. His low socio-economic background Is classed as 'breeding grounds for criminals' who are 'menaces to society.Many of the Jurors make such assumptions in deciding the boy's guilt or innocence rather than the merits of case.

Such prejudice therefore has the power to change the very systems meant to be secure to such concerns. Hence, by exploring a possible weakness of the legal system, Rose demonstrates that the underlying theme of the play Is whether legal system effectively delivers Justice, not It is in the court-room drama, Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose conveys the image that Justice within the legal system is of greater concern than the truth.This is emonstrated by the ordinary citizens who are responsible for making a

unanimous verdict, Rose emphasises the need for reason, rationality and impartial decisions in the pursuit of Justice. Also how different people bring their own fundamentals to the jury room. The play is concluded without ever informing the audience whether the defendant is guilty or innocent indicating that the truth about the events in question will never be revealed. More pointedly, they are of little consequence.

In the words of a Juror, 'everybody deserves a fair trial'.