Reason, empathy and Compassion in 12 Angry Men -
Feedback Plez
Reginald Rose utilises 12 Angry Men as a social commentary, exploring and condemning the mistakes made by the community when decision making is based on fallacious belief as opposed to critical thinking, reason, and logic. In focusing on a jury room and judicial system rife with prejudice and discrimination, Rose enthusiastically endorses an idealistic justice system whereby verdicts are reached by compassionate and critical decisions. He does this through the positive portrayal of the more humanist jurors and the way they form their opinions.
Firstly, in order for Rose to display the effects of compassion and humanism on the verdict, he aimed to create a contrast between idealistic notions of justice and 1950’s societal norms by presenting characters devoid of compassion and reason to influence the audience’s concept of the judicial system. The presentation of 10th Juror’s outrageous and inherently fallacious prejudices is intended as a binary opposite to Rose’s desired jury system. In portraying 10th Juror and his beliefs – “they’re violent, they’re vicious and they will eat us up,” using a tricolon to emphasise prejudice in the 10th juror and an anaphora of ‘they’ to dehumanise the accused, and “Sit down. And don’t open your filthy mouth again” – the audience is positioned to want change in the judicial system. Rose uses irony to highlight the moral failings of the current system in using the compassionless character of the 7th Juror. “I almost died in court,’' using a hyperbole to trivialise life and death in such a manner and being more concerned with his “tickets to the game” than the case, the 7th Juror blatantly demonstrates the failings of a system that enables such selfishness and unreasonable beliefs. The playwright also asserts that cold logic in itself is not enough, personifying this trait in 4th Juror, a man concerned with the “reasonable and logical progression of fact” but still harbours detrimental and compassionless prejudices such as “slums are breeding grounds for criminals.” In having such a pragmatic and reasonable character determined to vote ‘guilty’, a need for compassion in the justice system is presented. This view is ultimately consolidated in the play’s denouement when 4th Juror influences 3rd Juror to “Let him live”, leaving the audience with an optimistic presentation of justice perpetrated by compassion and reason.
In order to pursue to notion of the benefits of compassion on the verdict, Rose creates images of an idealistic judicial system the positive portrayal of those characters that exude compassion and reason. The 5th Juror actively contradicts 10th Juror throughout the play having “grown up in a slum” and directly challenges 10th Juror when he says “I nurse that trash in Harlem.” The fact that 5th Juror is not influenced by the accused’s socio-economic background and bases his decision off what seems reasonable conveys to the reader the potential of the jury system. Using the play’s protagonist, 8th Juror, as his idealistic view of American society, Rose highlights the effect ordinary people can have on the community when they conduct themselves valiantly. In “sticking the knife in the table” and subsequently declaring “I broke the law”, 8th Juror makes an important distinction between what is legal and what constitutes justice under the current system’s structure. This knife is symbolical of the 8th juror’s determination to question evidence which shows his compassion for deliberation to justly gain the verdict ultimately acts as a catalyst for change in many of the other jurors establishes the value of reason and humanism. The quote, ‘(8th juror) You know- Living in a slum, his mother dead... I think we maybe owe him a few words. That’s all,’ utilises low modality and conditional language that establishes the 8th juror as being reasonable, the main trait that has allowed him to display his views without pressure. His attitude ultimately manifests itself into behaviour, as during the play’s ending, he assists 3rd Juror to put his “suit jacket on” (stage direction) despite having a knife almost plunged at his chest. Thus, in the positive portrayal of compassionate and logical characters, Rose extols the virtues of a justice system based on these values and therefore, a positive influence on the verdict.
Reginald Rose utilises Twelve Angry Men as a social commentary and an overarching discussion on justice and how it can be hindered when society adopts xenophobic, compassionless and illogical behaviour as seen in 1950s America. However, through the displaying of Rose’s views through multiple juror’s, the characteristics of humanity, reason and compassion has positively influenced the verdict and in the long term, the play promotes change in the judicial system and asks for compassion and reason from the community.
Home
Help
Search
Login
