The Principles of the Justice and the Punishment for the Failed Responsibilities in 12 Angry Men

Justice can only be described as a fair and reasonable decision or action that leads to the triumph of the greater good. Our justice system is set up to make that kind of decision to those who are being persecuted or to the person demanding a punishment for failed responsibilities. In the play 12 Angry Men, 12 men appointed for jury duty, on a hot summer's day, must come together to reason the life of a teenage boy put on trial for the murder of his father. Spoiler, the verdict being "not guilty" does not properly summarize the battles that went on between and within each juror. From my stand point, justice never had a chance of almost being miscarried throughout the trial because of the strong argumentative elements involved within the defendant's trial. This was all due to Juror 8's confident observations that drew in the support from open minded jurors, and the constant cross examination of evidence that later became the heart of the discussion in the jury room.

Being that the play's setting is in the 1950's and the jurors were all men of the same race and it is implied that the defendant is the complete opposite skin color of the 12 men, you would think they would most likely all have the same biased opinion. Yet Juror 8, the first and only juror to vote "not guilty", never backed down when voicing his opposite opinion as he shared his views with conviction and compassion. For example, after the other jurors argue with Juror 8 on why there was no need for a further discussion because the defendant was clearly guilty, two jurors grab a pencil and paper to keep them entertained before Juror 8 snatches the supplies angrily saying, "This isn't a game. (Page 10)." Juror 8's statement and reaction confirms that he takes his responsibility of a juror seriously. He acknowledges that he has the power to send a man to his death therefore he repeatedly brought up the boy's past and current accounts to the other jurors to take into consideration. Having at least one man in the room, who wasn't lazy and uncaring, later started a fair trial for justice.

Even thought they were all the same race, these men appointed to be jurors in 12 Angry Men did come from different occupations and environments. Their differences makes the range of their personal views and personalities bigger because some men eventually showed how much more open minded they were. Little by little Juror 5 and Juror 4 slowly became more vocal in the discussion for the verdict against the defendant. In the text, Juror 5 announces his change to "not guilty" the second time the foreman calls for a vote (Page 15). By him starting off as very quiet around the other men, guessing because he felt like an alien around these other men who didn't have to grow up in a slum neighborhood, emphasizes that what he truly thinks in this case needed to be said. Then we have Juror 4, one of the men who strongly believed the defendant was guilty, who finally followed the rules given by the judge saying, "I'm sorry, there's reasonable doubt in my mind. (Page 20)." The rules of the court suggest that you should convict "guilty" unless there is reasonable doubt in your mind, meaning that there is a possibility that the defendant could not have done the crime.

Before the defendant had a chance of possibly getting the evidence in his case cross exanimated, suggesting that he was given the verdict "guilty", and the jurors unknowingly broke apart every detail they could. First, witness 1's testimony states that he saw the defendant run down the building's stairs seconds after the old man heard a thud from the upstairs apartment where the murder happened. In the play, Juror 8 explains how he noticed how slow the old man walked therefore making it impossible for the witness to get to his door, claiming it took him fifteen seconds, to see the boy run off; He even did a simulation by timing the distance, which was thirty one seconds, to make the other men think carefully about the evidence (Page 13&14). A big eye opener in the case was when Juror 8 pulled out the same exact switchblade that was found to be the murder weapon. It was said that blade was a one of a kind and there was no coincidence the boy, as he claims, lost his blade hours prior to the time of death of his abusive father. Yet what they didn't know was that the blade cost no more than two dollars at a pawn shop less than two blocks away from the building complex where the defendant lived.

As you can see, the main reason justice never had a chance of being miscarried in this trail points back to pairing Juror 8 in this diverse group of men. Juror 8 creates this rippling effect within the other jurors that makes them question and observe everything they experienced throughout the trial. Juror 8's full forward approach to the other men showed how he was not going to be pressured or frightened to uncaringly vote to make everybody's life easier. He is such a figure of how opinionated someone should be within a group of those with harsh and questionable views on the world. Yes, there was discriminating prejudice by Juror 10 because of the race of the defendant but, thanks to other jurors pointing out his ignorance, Juror 8 was able to sit back and focus on his convincible tactic to calmly make those uninformed minds aware of the actions for fair justice.

Works Cited

• Rose, Reginald. Twelve Angry Men. New York, N.Y.: Dramatic Pub., 1989. Print

Cite this page