Twelce Angry Men

Teresa Juanes Toranzo
GRUPO A-3
Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose
Twelve jurors enter a jury room where they must deliberate whether or not the defendant; an 18-year-old man accused of murderinghis father, is guilty. The evidence of culpability seems overwhelming; except for juror number eight, who tries to persuade the other eleven members to acquit the suspect on trial on the basis ofreasonable doubt. They struggle to reach an unanimous verdict on fate of the young boy due to, in some cases, to the jurors’ prejudices.
In the play 'Twelve Angry Men', prejudice often clouds judgment.There are not only economic and social, but also cultural backgrounds. This means cultural prejudices of jurors can colour their interpretation of facts. For instance, I think that the third juror hasa strong prejudice against children. “I think we’d be better off if we took these tough kids and slapped ‘em down before they make trouble, you know? Save us a lot of time and money” (7), “It’s thekids, the way they are nowadays. Angry! Hostile! You can’t do a damn thing with them. Just the way they talk to you. (…)” (17).
It is when he argues with juror number eight when we realize that, inthis case, the bad relationship with his son could be that wrong experience to make him think like that. His son has grown up, challenged his authority and rejected his values. This is why he is soquick to judge the boy on trial, “Listen, all of this is just talk. The boy lied and you know it” (24)
To sum up, my personal opinion about juror number three is that he has a desire to dominate and winthe argument rather than finding a best solution. In fact, he even contradicts himself when he refers to the expression “I’ll kill you”. Firstly, he says “Wait a minute! (…) “I’m going to kill you,”(…)Don’t tell me he didn’t mean it. Anybody says a think like that the way he said it, they mean it” (37). However, he says himself later “Shut up, you son of a bitch! Let go of me, God damn it! I’ll...