[English] Text response - Twelve Angry Men

[myanacondadont]

Thankyou if you have a look. Was told to post here


“Twelve Angry Men is really about a dissenting juror who convinces the jury to change their verdict” Discuss.


Reginald Rose’s play, Twelve Angry Men, amplifies the faults and malleability of the 1950s American Judicial System. Rose uses Juror Eight to highlight the power of popular opinion while maintaining a moral virtue to the case. We then come to recognize sources of injustice, as well as its widespread prevalence. By placing Juror Eight as the sole juror who attains an ethical standpoint Rose accentuates the rampant prejudicial and discriminatory behaviour that goes unchecked in ministering justice. Juror Eight’s questioning nature leads to faults in, once thought, infallible evidence and testimonies. This provokes an adherence to the guidelines of the court, finally succeeding in providing an “honest and thoughtful” deliberation.

Juror Eight’s background is supporting evidence in his moral stance on the case. His university educated background places him on an intellectually superior level. He constantly seeks the truth to the case, aiming to provide a verdict based on democratic principles. Rose uses Juror Eight to present the notion that democracy and justice are an individual’s responsibility. His role proves to be integral in identifying irrational beliefs among the other jurors which shroud the egalitarian nature of the system. He is less about disagreeing to the verdict, and more about providing a thoughtful decision based on equality and ethical guidelines. It becomes apparent he is adherent on democratic principle early in Act 1, as he stands righteously in the face of 11 other conflicting decisions. Hi claim that,  “It’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first”, antagonises the rest of the jurors. This creates a sense of discontent towards Juror Eight, and as a result is seen as merely endeavouring to disagree. This is used by Rose to exemplify an apparent source of injustice.

Verdicts based on discriminatory beliefs only serve to deny the system its purpose. Juror Ten encapsulates the true power of pre-existing ideas when taken in to a court case; which is then exacerbated by its severity. His bigot and repugnant attitude towards the others becomes apparent as he says “I’m sick and tired of facts. You can twist ‘em any way you like.” He is intolerant of opposing views and fails to incorporate a conflicting interpretation in to his own. Rose uses Juror Ten to demonstrate the potential of racism and prejudice if allowed to go unchecked. He does not change his verdict until late in the second act, as he begins his bias rant. His views are displayed completely and, due to their disgraceful nature, each juror begins to turn their on the completely biased argument being presented. In a moment of sudden realization he acknowledges his grotesque behaviour, and changes verdict.

Each Juror comes to realize their faults in assessing the case. Especially Juror Four, who operates on a sort of disciplined cold passion. Despite his highly educated background, which is evident from his occupation as a Stock Broker, he still incorporates a prejudicial view in to his own. His role signifies that even the most educated fail to adhere to a set of ethical guidelines. Juror Four prefers to analyse the information systematically, however his beliefs are demonstrated as he says “Slums are breeding grounds for criminals… Children from them are potential menaces to society.” As the eyesight of the female witness comes under question he changes verdict, declaring he now possesses a “reasonable doubt”. Juror Four demonstrates a failure in restraining emotional involvement, and as such was prompted to realize this. He was not convinced necessarily, but made to acknowledge his misconduct.

Juror Two accentuates the problem of popular opinion within the Justice System. Juror Two throughout the play gets convinced easily by intimidation. Combined with his meek and hesitant attitude it results in him changing vote 3 times. At the first vote he fails to stand courageously with Juror Eight, instead denying his own sense of morals. Without his own sense of morals there is a larger potential for injustice. He however facilitates the questioning of evidence and as such his underlying cooperation to deliberate “honestly and thoughtfully” is seen.

Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, portrays a lack of moral and ethical obedience. Juror Eight facilitates a dissection of the case, resulting in many holes in hard-pressed evidence being revealed. By discussing his concern with the case, the other jurors are provoked to reconsider their verdict. Juror Eight doesn’t aim to disagree, instead aiming to grant the 1950s Judicial System the egalitarian nature it deserves.



Again, thankyou.

[brenden]

Reginald Rose’s play, Twelve Angry Men, amplifies the faults and malleability of the 1950s American Judicial System don't need capitalisation on judicial system . Rose uses Juror Eight to highlight the power of popular opinion while maintaining a moral virtue to the case. WeYou probably shouldn't use first person words like 'we' and 'us and 'I' in VCE. It's pretty arbitrary but everyone seems to think the assessor's don't like it) then come to recognize sources of injustice, as well as its widespread prevalence. By placing Juror Eight as the sole juror who attains an ethical standpoint Rose accentuates the rampant prejudicial and discriminatory behaviour that goes unchecked in ministering justice. Juror Eight’s questioning nature leads to faults in, once thought,you don't need those two commas infallible evidence and testimonies. This provokes an adherence to the guidelines of the court, finally succeeding in providing an “honest and thoughtful” deliberation.A final sentence here like "Hence, <my response to the prompt is...> would be good. "Hence, Twelve Angry Men is really about prejudice, something something". It seems as if you've gone to agree with the prompt by mentioning Juror 8 a lot, but you've also mentioned some other ideas, so you could be disagreeing with the prompt and saying it's about something else. A final sentence would clear this up. You'd also be best off agreeing with this prompt - it'd free you up a whole lot.

Juror Eight’s background is supporting evidence in his moral stance on the case. His university educated background places him on an intellectually superior level. He constantly seeks the truth to the case, aiming to provide a verdict based on democratic principles. Rose uses Juror Eight to present the notion that democracy and justice are an individual’s responsibility. His role proves to be integral in identifying irrational beliefs among the other jurors which shroud the egalitarian nature of the system. He is less about disagreeing to the verdict, and more about providing a thoughtful decision based on equality and ethical guidelines. It becomes apparent he is adherent on democratic principle early in Act 1, as he stands righteously in the face of 11 other conflicting decisions. Hi claim that,  “It’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first”, antagonises the rest of the jurors. This creates a sense of discontent towards Juror Eight, and as a result is seen as merely endeavouring to disagree. This is used by Rose to exemplify an apparent source of injustice. You definitely need to start quoting a bit more to hit the "textual knowledge" criteria. You speak a bit about Juror Eight, and some of it's good stuff but it's a bit 'retells'. Go get my notes from that thread and just read through it - you'll start to remember quotes and basic points of analysis that you can start integrating into your essay.

Verdicts based on discriminatory beliefs only serve to deny the system its purpose. Juror Ten encapsulates the true power of pre-existing ideas when taken in to a court case; which is then exacerbated by its severity. His bigot and repugnant attitude towards the others becomes apparent as he says “I’m sick and tired of facts. You can twist ‘em any way you like.” He is intolerant of opposing views and fails to incorporate a conflicting interpretation in to his own. Rose uses Juror Ten to demonstrate the potential of racism and prejudice if allowed to go unchecked. He does not change his verdict until late in the second act, as he begins his bias rant. His views are displayed completely and, due to their disgraceful nature, each juror begins to turn their on the completely biased argument being presented. In a moment of sudden realization he acknowledges his grotesque behaviour, and changes verdict. Again, this is somewhat of a summation - but what you're struggling in with these paragraphs other than the quoting/analysis combo is a really strong link to the prompt. You either need to open up your paragraphs saying 'THIS IS MY VIEW ON THE PROMPT" and then link it back at the end of the paragraph. That's why if you disagreed, you could say "twelve angry men is about x". You need to be talking about what 12AM is really about in order to be relevant.

Each Juror comes to realize their faults in assessing the case. Especially Juror Four, who operates on a sort of disciplined cold passion. Despite his highly educated background, which is evident from his occupation as a Stock Broker, he still incorporates a prejudicial view in to his own. But what is Twelve Angry Men really about? His role signifies that even the most educated fail to adhere to a set of ethical guidelines. Juror Four prefers to analyse the information systematically, however his beliefs are demonstrated as he says “Slums are breeding grounds for criminals… Children from them are potential menaces to society.” As the eyesight of the female witness comes under question he changes verdict, declaring he now possesses a “reasonable doubt”. Juror Four demonstrates a failure in restraining emotional involvement, and as such was prompted to realize this. He was not convinced necessarily, but made to acknowledge his misconduct.

Juror Two accentuates the problem of popular opinion within the Justice System. Juror Two throughout the play gets convinced easily by intimidation. Combined with his meek and hesitant attitude it results in him changing vote 3 times. At the first vote he fails to stand courageously with Juror Eight, instead denying his own sense of morals. Without his own sense of morals there is a larger potential for injustice. He however facilitates the questioning of evidence and as such his underlying cooperation to deliberate “honestly and thoughtfully” is seen.

Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, portrays a lack of moral and ethical obedience. Juror Eight facilitates a dissection of the case, resulting in many holes in hard-pressed evidence being revealed. By discussing his concern with the case, the other jurors are provoked to reconsider their verdict. Juror Eight doesn’t aim to disagree, instead aiming to grant the 1950s Judicial System the egalitarian nature it deserves.


So, you have a little bit of work to do to be on track for your goal, but nothing that won't be fixed by a few practice essays. Firstly, you need a way bigger focus on the prompt with your paragraph ideas. Once you've got that you can start to talk about your ideas and integrate a bit more quotes/analysis. You mentioned Rose and what he demonstrates analytically a few times - that was good. Check my essay feedback on literally lauren's Free Exam Thread for advice on how to do topic sentences, if you nail those down you'll basically be on track because everything else will fall into place.

So:

Read my notes
Do some practice essays
Fix your topic sentences

[myanacondadont]

Thanks!