Hi Guys,
Could you please read this essay and see what I need to improve on and what I have done well in. Also, can you please look closely at the analysis part of my essay and see if I have retold too much or not.
Thanks
“In Twelve Angry Men, Rose highlights the flaws of a criminal justice system which relies on the judgement of twelve individuals.” Discuss.
Set in a 1950’s America where the country openly accepted and practiced discrimination against African Americans, “Twelve Angry Men” focuses on a criminal justice system, which ultimately consists of twelve Caucasian men who enter the jury room being composed of different personalities and characteristics where through deliberations are able to reach a final verdict on the defendants’ life. Play writer Reginald Rose in his award winning social commentary utilizes his play to highlight, to a larger extent, the fragilities of a judiciary process that depends on the decisions of twelve jurors rather than the positive outcomes that are obtained throughout the duration of the case. Concentrating on a jury room fueled with prejudism, Rose demonstrates how preconceived notions hinder the ability of justice ever prevailing. He achieves this through the depictions of the more compassionless jurors and the way they set about their opinions on the case in hand. Furthermore, Rose hones in on the egotistic characteristics of the jurors, which ultimately indicates their lack of concern for the defendant’s life and underlines the failings of the democracy process. However, through the characterizations of the sympathetic jurors, Rose shares a glimpse into an idealistic justice system, where honesty and justice triumphs over prejudicial xenophobia.
Rose presents characters in the jury room to which underscore the gap between the fighting for justice and egalitarianism succeeding and subsequently, the inherent imperfections of the jury case apparent appropriately due to their prejudicial and bias actions. The characterization of Juror 3, attaining the role as the antagonist in the play, exposes the complete opposite of Reginald Rose’s preferable jury system. Establishing 3’s beliefs where he feels ‘The man’s a dangerous killer’, Rose outlines the antagonist’s purposeful comments to getting the defendant to face a heavier conviction. As calling him a ‘man’ signifies Juror 3’s attempt to dehumanize the defendant, the play writer sheds light to the adversary’s inability to realize how his estrangement from his son, who symbolizes the defendant, affects his decisions towards the jury case. Rose too also applies epistrophe to reiterate the defendant as not the only victim of these jaundice remarks. “They’re against us, they hate us, they want to destroy us”. In adopting an us vs them mentality towards the people of the slum, the 10th juror insinuates the desire to be unassociated with “them”, the slum, an embodiment of the racism and prejudice which came apparent post World War II, and thus, pinpoints the very reason towards the faults of the criminal justice system. Despite being a character looking to abide to the laws and rules of a judiciary case, as he suggests to the other jurors to “stick to the facts” of the case, he believes that “slums are breeding grounds for criminals”. In doing so, Rose excogitates how even the most rational jurors are capable of being succumbed to preconceived notions of prejudice, and hence, in essence, delineates a justice system being ingrained to discrimination, which comprehensively emphasizes its liabilities. In light of the effect bitterness has on the jury case, Rose too condemns the self-interest apparent by jurors in the jury case promoting a jury system based on personal aspirations rather than the jurors doing their civic duty.
Through exploiting the discussions that take place between jurors, the play writer criticizes and condemns the manner through which some jurors disregard the case, consequently highlighting the egotism displayed in the jury room and evidently, implies an indelible aspect of the justice system. The 7th Juror, seen to show more interest in the baseball game than the jury case it self, becomes an embodiment to those who place self – interest over playing their roles as jurors. Holding the perception regarding the case being a “Goddamn waste of time”, Rose presents the careless attitudes to which a portion of the jurors enter the jury room with and display throughout the deliberations of the case in spite of knowing it’s their “duty to try and separate the facts from the fancy”. In such a situation where “A boy may die”, Reginald Rose, outlines how detrimental and damaging self-interest can be which potentially holds the capacity to threaten the entire criminal justice system in itself. Seen to colloquially talk in a business mannered way, perhaps as a result of his background as an executive at an advertising agency, 12th Juror insists on “analyzing the figures” of the case instead of the “facts”. Owing to this, by admitting his “habit of doodling”, Rose explains how the outside world is a focal point to the faith of the defendant and how it proves to be a distraction for many of the jurors inside the “large, drab, bare room” of the jury court. In the height of the consumer culture and the booming sales of comics, which were growing popular in society, Juror 12 epitomizes the hysteria behind the reality of America where the prospect of living the American dream were papering over the cracks of the internal problems arising in the country. Paralleling this, Rose praises the efforts of other jurors seeking to paint an image of the play writer’s utopian criminal justice system.
Appreciating the similarities between the humanist jurors fight for justice and Martin Luther King’s efforts for equality for African Americans at the time, Rose creates a novel which notwithstanding the indelible deficiencies that arise in the social commentary, highlights the good that comes out of deliberations asserting Rose’s ideal justice system where Prejudice is no match for justice and honesty. “Faced with a grave responsibility” to seek out their roles as jurors, Eight’s ability to discover the innocence out of the defendant and his role to mitigate the accuses offence represents his role as a protagonist and the defender of the justice system. Indicated by the stage directions where he “slowly raises his hand” knowing “it’s not easy for me[him]”… to “send a boy off to die”, 8th Juror showcases his integrity, which other jurors lack emphasizing the potential of the justice system and the ability for it to fulfill its job properly. As tensions arise, symbolically represented by the “hot summer” weather, the old man Juror 9, who heavily receives a vast amount of discriminatory remarks from the ethnocentric individual 10th Juror stands up for not only himself but also for the face of justice. Describing the 10th Juror as an “ignorant man” due to his actions, Reginald Rose asserts how the 9th Juror is not influenced and peer pressured by other jurors pledging for him to “see this boy die”. It ultimately insinuates how justice is a serious issue conducted in the right manner by jurors who do not lack the compassion to help “let him[the defendant] live” and demonstrates the strengths of the justice system which delineates the idealistic justice system for the play writer. Being part of a jury case himself, Reginald Rose utilizes his experience as a juror to expose the thoughtful acts by a minority of jurors, which gives rise to his message where humanistic actions are always present, no matter the level of prejudistic and racist views fueled in the jury room. Thus, with the positive depictions of humanist jurors, the playwriter praises the criminal democracy process consisting of jurors able to acquire justice properly.
In his award winning social commentary “Twelve Angry Men”, the playwriter Reginald Rose focuses on the justice system, which in spite of the rare occasions that positive outcomes come out of deliberations, assert to a larger extent, the fragilities that lie within the criminal justice system. Overall, the play promotes the ways in which prejudice and self-interest hinders the stature of the judiciary court.
Home
Help
Search
Login
