“12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose Essay

When reading the play 12 angry men, is it tough to ignore the prominent character- the 8th Juror. As the plot unfolds, the lecturer nonices that Juror 8 is the only one among the 12 who really understands the distressfulness of the situation at their hands.At the very beginning of the play, you can define that there is no sympathy towards the male child accused of murder. And why should it be? All the evidence that was brought up in the court room has suppress the defense and the male childs chances on the trial. The prosecution made it build that the boy is guilty. In fact, too clear- The defense was helpless and left many another(prenominal) holes in their case.Thats why in the initial vote through with(p) by the jurymans, everybody votes guilty (against the boy) except for 8. And here we see the first enormousness of 8 because of his reasonable doubt the jury hadnt found the boy guilty at the first 10 minutes of their debating, which would have terminate the trial. 8 did not necessarily believe the boy was innocent, but he understood that if he raised his hand at that vote- it would all end. They go out not have a chance to discuss the case, and it will, in his eyes, decrease the value of human life.Furthermore, we can see that 8 is a observe character in many other parts of the play. After startle to talk about the case, some of the other jurors got mad and well-tried to incline 8 to vote guilty and end the discussion. Yet, he stayed calm and tried to continue debating in spite of their efforts to convert him. After realizing that he is stand up alone against them, he called for another vote, in which he will not participate (a rather questionable action, considering he had not yet intercommunicate out the contradictions that he had found in the prosecutions case). This was a rather bold step, but it paid out because of 9, who changed his vote to not guilty because of his respect towards 8 and 8s courage. We see that contempt the effo rts the 11 jurors made, 8 stuck to his position and allowed the continuation of the play.At page 26 we see another contribution to the unfolding of the case- Juror 8brings up the question whether the old man (who had testified about regarding the accused boy shouting Im going to kill you) could really hear what he had clamed he heard. 8 makes the brilliant connection between both pieces of separate testimonies and proves (as much as it can be proved) that it was not viable for the old man to hear that. One by one he shattered the so-called facts, as he proved that Sometimes the facts that ar staring you in the face are wrong. He develops the erupt with the 15-seconds walk the old man apparently took, the eyeglasses marks neighboring to the testifying womans eyes and many more.You can say that juror 8 has an additional importance to the play, in the terms of his character and personality. He shows a side that the jurors could not see- he tried to rate himself in the boys shoes and see the case from a contrastive perspective. By doing that, he showed the other jurors how prejudice can prevent large number from seeing the truth (or in their case- judge in a computer menu manner). You can honestly say that if it were not for him, the boy would have been put to death for sure.He may only be an architect, but he presented his arguments like a lawyer and proved his theories throughout the play. He avoided existence personally involved and let his sharp and lucid mind collar him and the rest of the jury on their way to solve the case.