Hey, I've posted a practice essay of mine below, could someone read it and give me some suggestions on areas for improvement? Also, could you give it a mark out of 30 so that I have an indication of how I'm going in my preparation for the SAC?
Why is it so difficult for the jury in “Twelve Angry Men” to reach its final verdict?
It is for a range of reasons that the jury in Twelve Angry Men (Reginald Rose) find it hard to reach a unified decision. Rose uses prejudice to express the challenges that are posed to the jury in reaching a unanimous verdict, which ultimately leads to conflict amongst the jurors. As a result, the jury finds it difficult to agree with one another in terms of a unanimous verdict. Through the jury, Rose portrays a group of different people with differing opinions and experiences. It is for this reason, along with others, that the jury in “Twelve Angry Men” finds it so difficult to reach a decision. Each of these factors contributes to the difficult task of achieving a unanimous agreement.
The theme of prejudice expressed by Rose in “Twelve Angry Men” is personified by jurors 3 and 10. As the play progresses, it becomes more and more blatant to the audience that these characters possess an element of prejudice that cannot be easily overcome. This can be seen to create difficulty in the agreement of a verdict. Juror 3’s prejudice for the accused is illustrated by his own troubled relationship with his son. This is shown when Juror 3 comments that he and his son “had a battle,” two years previously, in which “[his son] punched [him] in the face.” As a result, Juror 3 has not “seen [his son] in two years.” As such, Juror 3 forms a parallel between the boy’s murder of his own father, and his own son’s actions, who he feels has stabbed him in the back (similar to the actions of the accused). This is exemplified by juror 3’s exasperated comment that “[he] can feel that knife goin’ in.” This bias leads juror 3 to vote ‘guilty,’ and he unreasonably refuses to vote ‘not guilty,’ even claiming that he “can sit in this goddamn room for a year.” This, in itself, prevents the jury from producing a unanimous verdict because of the stark contrast between reason and prejudice which causes disagreement within the jury. Similarly, juror 10 is prejudiced towards the accused because he (the accused) is from the slums. Rose demonstrates this multiple times throughout the play, such as when juror 10 claims that “these people are born to lie.” This highlights the main reason for juror 10’s ‘guilty’ vote; that he cannot believe a word “those people” say. As such, the prejudice of both jurors 3 and 10 can be construed as generating difficulty in reaching a final decision due to their refusal to see reasonable doubt in the case.
Moreover, the conflict caused by the prejudice of several jurors further contributes to the difficulty in reaching a final verdict. This is because it creates an atmosphere of anger and distrust between these jurors. For example, jurors 3 and 8 clash when juror 8 calls juror 3 a “sadist,” and a “self-appointed public avenger,” intent on seeing the “boy die because [he] personally want it, not because of the facts.” This creates anger between the two jurors that is not reconciled until juror 3 realises his prejudice and votes ‘not guilty.’ However, this process to convince juror 3 of the ‘reasonable doubt’ in the case is made extremely difficult by his anger towards juror 8. In the end, though, juror 3’s anger ultimately subsides and he is able to perceive his prejudice when it is highlighted to him. This process proves very hard, and therefore contributes towards the difficulty of reaching a final determination.
Juries in the U.S in 1957 were intended to represent a cross-section of society, comprising only white men of different ages, values, and beliefs. This clash of opinions, specifically in “Twelve Angry Men,” inherently leads to disagreement which makes it extremely problematic for the jury to produce a collective decision. For example, juror 11, an immigrant from Germany, clearly values the system of democracy immensely due to his experiences in other undemocratic countries. In contrast, other jurors, such as juror 3, have come to take the system of democracy and the right to sit on a jury for granted. This is exemplified by juror 3’s comment, when asked what he thought of the trial, that “[he] was falling asleep.” Juror 3 has clearly experienced this “social responsibility” many times previously, contributing to his boredom. This dichotomy can be seen by the audience as a demonstration of the variety of opinions evident on the jury. As such, this inevitably causes the process of agreeing on a verdict to be quite immense.
Ultimately, there are a myriad of reasons that contribute to the jury finding the task of deciding on a verdict so difficult. These range from the prejudices of jurors, which prevent the jury from deciding on a verdict, to the conflict between jurors. In essence, this conflict stems from the prejudice of juror 3, which precludes the jury from deciding on a collective verdict. Additionally, the fact that a jury is meant to represent a cross-section of society, suggests Rose, inevitably lead to disagreement and difficulty in reaching a verdict.
Thanks,
Smith.ts