12 Angry Men Essay Research Paper Twelve

12 Angry Men Essay, Research Paper Twelve Angry Men The play ?Twelve Angry Men?, By Reginald Rose, is a play about 12 jurors that in an uncomfortable room have to discuss a life and death case about a boy that is accused or killing his father. the jurors do not really know eachother to talk to and wish they were anywhere but in that jury room.

12 Angry Men Essay, Research Paper

Twelve Angry Men

The play ?Twelve Angry Men?, By Reginald Rose, is a play about 12 jurors that in an uncomfortable room have to discuss a life and death case about a boy that is accused or killing his father. the jurors do not really know eachother to talk to and wish they were anywhere but in that jury room. Every juror has a different emotional pattern that makes the play interesting. In my opinion there were 3 main jurors in the jury room: Juror 8, Juror 3 and Juror 9. Juror 8 is

important because he is smart, brave, and fair. Juror 3 was important because he was the antagonist, he was mean, and he was intolerant. Juror 9 was important because he wasn?t afraid of confronting other jurors.

Juror 8 was a very important juror, he was the protagonist. He was the one that proved the truth.

Juror 8 was very smart, he bought a knife similar to the one used in the crime to prove that is

easy to get an identical knife, and he proved that it was impossible for the old man to make it to

the scene of the crime in 15 seconds like he testified. Juror 8 was also brave. He was the only

one that voted not guilty in the first vote and he standed for what he believed in and confronted

everybody. In addition, Juror 8 was also fair. He said ?It?s not easy for me to raise my hand and

send a boy off to die with out talking about it first? when he was the only one that voted not

guilty in the first vote. He also listened to everyone?s opinions and never insulted anyone.

Juror 3 was also a very important juror in the jury room. Juror 3 was the antagonist. He was the

main enemy of Juror 8 and he was trying to keep people from believing that the boy was not

guilty. Juror 3 was also mean. He wanted everyone to think the way he did, and lost his temper

whenever they didn?t. In addition, Juror 3 was also intolerant. He didn?t want to listen to

anybody?s opinions and in the discussion that he had with Juror 8 on page 147 in the book, it

seemed that he personally wanted the kid to die.

Another very important juror in the jury room was Juror 9. Juror 9 was a fair man. He voted not

guilty because he had a reasonable doubt in his mind and he listened to everyone?s opinions,

Juror 9 was also smart. He made a reasonable doubt by saying that the old man might of lied to

get attention because he noticed that he was a quiet, frightened, insignificant man who has

probably never been nothing all his life. He also remembered that the woman in the train had

bifocals, and that she never took them off. that made a reasonable doubt on everyone?s mind

because it would of been very hard for the woman in the train to see the crime because she

testified that she saw the boy kill hi father while she was trying to sleep and no one sleeps with

their glasses on. In addition, he wasn?t afraid to confront other jurors . He was the first one to

support Juror 8 and he didn?t care what others said and when he made some points, such as the

old man and the bifocals, he didn?t care what others said.

In conclusion, Juror 8 is important because he is smart, brave and fair. Juror 8 was the main

reason why the truth was proven, that?s why he is the protagonist, he standed for what he

believed in until the truth was proven. Juror 3 was the antagonist. He was mean and intolerant. I

think the main reason why he was so mean and intolerant is because his son wasn?t a good son

and that made him have a bad image of young kids, that?s why he voted guilty, because in a way

he thought that the accused was like his son. Juror 9 was fair, smart, and he wasn?t afraid of

confronting other jurors.

Bibliography

Twelve angry men, by Reginald Rose