In the drama “Twelve Angry Men”, written by Rose Reginald (1950), the audience clearly sees the flow in the American justicesystem. The jurors represent different types of individuals in society in terms of profession, thinking and behaviour. By creating a strong contrast between Juror 8 and Juror 3, Rose points out that averdict of "guilty" or "not guilty" depends on the personalities and experiences of the jurors.
Juror #3 and Juror #8 had different jobs. Juror #3 was a business man; he says “I run amessenger service ‘The Beck and Call Company’ ” (9). He seemed to be a risk taker and quick in decision making. On the other hand, Juror #8 was a well-educated person, an architect (29). His behaviour islogical and analytic as required in his profession. The different occupations of the two men evoke different personality characteristics which influence their perspective about the boy.
Thetwo men think very differently. On one hand, Juror #3 was emotionally driven in his thinking. He quickly came to conclusions without going through facts, and was completely biased by his personalexperiences. He found the defendant guilty without any discussion as he did not see any point in questioning and analyzing what was being said by the witness. While talking to J2, J3 says, “I was fallingasleep…did you ever hear so much talk about nothing” (7)?
His personal relationship with his son and desire to punish him made Juror #3 condemns the defendant without any rational consideration.“Yeah, I’ve got one. He’s twenty. We did everything for that boy, and what happened? When he was nine he ran away from a fight. I saw him. I was so ashamed I almost threw up. So I told him right out. ‘I’mgonna make a man outa you or I’m gonna bust you in half trying.’ Well, I made a man outa him all right. When he was sixteen we had a battle. He hit me in the face. He’s big, y’know. I haven’t seen...