A Room of 12 Angry Men

956 Words2 Pages

Twelve men are put in a room to decide the fate of a boy on trial. Did he commit murder? Or didn’t he? At first none of the men seem to care about the boy. He grew up in the slums, had a criminal record, and was always in trouble. Every one of the men had someplace they needed to go and just wanted to get it over with, especially juror number seven, a baseball fan who was going to miss his baseball game. They took a vote, and as expected, everyone voted guilty. It was an open and shut case. All the evidence was there. It was clear the boy committed the crime. Now everyone could go home, but, wait, there was one person whose vote did not match the others. One person cared. One person saw it; what America is supposed to be. Juror number eight.

In fury all the men turned on him. What was he thinking? Did he think it was funny to keep them there, away from their lives? It was an obvious case, what more did he want? The man calmly replied that the boy’s life was worth more than that. He did not know if the boy was guilty or not. This was a boy’s life that they held in their hands. They should at least look the case over and talk about it. Still the men continued to razz him and beat down on him with their words. He was all alone. However, slowly they began to talk about all the facts. Juror number eight, through careful thinking, was able to challenge all of them. Being, as negotiators say, a devil’s advocate, he questioned everything they said, just to force them to negotiate about it. To add conflict to things that before didn’t seem to need to be talked about. He didn’t know if the boy was innocent or guilty, but he knew his case deserved more than five minutes. The pressure built when he pulled out a knife that looked exactly l...

... middle of paper ...

...d in court, had those same marks on the sides of her nose. A gasp filled the room and everyone was astonished. Juror four gradually remembered that he too saw the marks, and switched sides. Juror three broke out in a rage and got all emotional, but in the end he realized that the real reason he didn’t believe the boy was innocent had nothing to do with the boy, but with what happened to his own son. Juror ten, seeing that he had lost, changed sides, and the case was again brought to court.

To be a true leader, one must stand up for what is right, even it is all alone. Even if no one else cares. A true leader also listens to others views patiently, and with respect; they don’t let their emotions or their past cloud their view. The fact is, a man is innocent until proven guilty. If juror eight wouldn’t have stood up for that, then an innocent boy would have died.

Open Document