Critical Analysis Of Twelve Angry Men

1330 Words3 Pages

Leaders today are lauded less for their ability to achieve compromises in governance than for their unwavering, absolute belief that their position is the right one. Our society seems to have lost its understanding that the dynamic world we live in makes little room for absolute rights and wrongs. Challenging the seemingly intransient onset of stalwartness as a standard of leadership are small but significant voices from the past, reminders that no truth we ever attach ourselves to can ever be proven absolutely true. One such challenge comes from Twelve Angry Men, playwright Reginald Roses’ ceaselessly relevant story of a jury and the moral challenges it faces in rendering a verdict. Over the course of his now famous text, Rose highlighted
When the 8th Juror refused to vote with his fellow jurors, it was decided that each would explain his belief in the accused’s guilt in the hopes of convincing the lone dissenter. The other eleven began mounting arguments using facts of the case: the murder weapon bought by the accused, the two witnesses to the crime, and the lack of an alternative suspect. Little by little, however, the deliberations began to cast doubts upon the formerly solid case; grey began to color the black-and-white situation. As this doubt bloomed, the 8th Juror put words to the voiceless uncertainty filling the hearts of his fellow jurors. Attempting to make evident the complexity of the previously simple decision, he said, “sometimes the facts that are staring you in the face are wrong” (38). Here the 8th Juror voiced a concern that came with pure adherence to the easiest explanation: the very real possibility that other, more significant sides to the story might exist. He urged his fellow jurors not to accept the story put forth by the prosecution without question but rather to challenge it vigorously in the hopes of finding the purest truth.
He challenged the case evidence well-enough that the other jurors, once so convinced of the accused’s guilt, started to join him in reasonably doubting that a guilty verdict was merited. While some jurors remained adamant in their guilty votes until the final moments, the others joined the not-guilty side one-by-one until that verdict was reached. Though a not-guilty verdict carried with it less immediate consequences – no one would die – the jury remained unable to a make a choice with absolute certainty. This inability stemmed from the human nature of those responsible for administering justice. Though humans strive for perfection, they are imperfect creatures capable of making mistakes. This reality was recognized by the 8th Juror in challenging the absolute confidence the other jurors had in the witnesses. He argued, “They’re only people. People make mistakes. Could they be wrong?” (20). The significance of his point expanded past the witnesses he challenged. The question he posed, whether people could be wrong, was also relevant as he and the other jurors neared a not-guilty verdict. They argued for that verdict with confidence but recognized that their pursuit had great potential to have been in error. Whether their path was the right one, they would never know. This uncertainty haunted even the original advocate for a not-guilty verdict, the 8th Juror, as can be seen in his response to

Open Document