Hey there,
I've written an esssay on a topic similar to this so I'll post it for you below. Hope it helps. Not quite sure how good it is, perhaps a past student can let you know.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reginald Rose is more concerned with whether the legal system delivers justice than the guilt or innocence of the accused. Discuss.
A two-act drama set entirely in a single “jury room of a New York state of law”, Reginald Rose’s play ‘Twelve Angry Men’ begins with all but one of the jurors certain of the defendant’s guilt. However, as the play progresses Rose accentuates the potentiality of flawed evidence, suggesting that “you can’t send someone off to die on evidence like that”. Accordingly, this is the reason why the judge instructs the jury to base their verdict on the concept of reasonable doubt so as to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice. Therefore, Rose’s greatest message lies not in whether the accused actually committed the crime but in the notion that justice must prevail above all else. Consequently, Rose shows that the legal system will always deliver a just result as long as the individuals who represent the system are responsibly fulfilling their role of active citizenship.
Throughout the play Rose highlights the possibility of the truth being misinterpreted and making the guilt or innocence of the accused difficult to establish. The play begins with the monotonous voice of the judge reminding the jurors that, “they are faced with a grave responsibility” as the life of a human being is in their hands. The gravity of the situation is heightened by Rose’s use of real time and the claustrophobic confines of the court room, as the audience find themselves trapped behind a locked door with the jurors, enduring every moment of tension and revelation that arises on “the hottest day of the year”. The jurors are instructed “to separate the facts from the fancy” as the judge is aware of the likelihood of prevaricated facts. Juror Eleven’s claim that “facts may be coloured by the personalities of the people who present them” becomes an undeniable reality when each piece of testimony is scrutinised. When the jurors deliberate about all the ‘given facts’, they discover that sometimes “the facts that are staring [them] in the face are wrong”. One such piece of evidence is the seemingly “unshakable testimony” of the woman who claims that she saw the murder as it happened. Through the careful observations of Juror Nine, they learn that the woman “had to identify a person sixty feet away in the dark, without glasses”. Due to this reasoning, it becomes difficult for the jurors to establish a unanimous verdict concerning the guilt or innocence of the young defendant. The precarious nature of absolute certainty can also be seen through the prejudiced predispositions of some of the jurors, symbolic of how sometimes all the odds can be stacked against the accused due to community attitudes. Juror Eight’s comment, “prejudice obscures the truth” makes it all the more evident that in this context, innocence would be difficult to establish if jurors hold the view that “there is not one of them, not one who’s any good” when referring to the social group of the accused. Thus, by showing how unreliable and adulterated the truth may be, Rose illustrates the futility of attaining an overriding truth concerning whether the defendant is guilty or not.
Due to such ambiguity, the concept of reasonable doubt is implemented as a safeguard for justice. Rose identifies this as an important feature of the American judicial system, where “no jury can declare a man guilty unless it’s sure”. Its importance is exemplified by the omniscient voice of the judge which is culminated in the judge’s god like presence as he is not seen while he delivers his message that “if there is any reasonable doubt then [the jury] must bring [him] a verdict of “not guilty””. The characters delineate how reasonable doubt is an important safeguard in the jury room. While it does not completely eliminate the possibility of a guilty man going free, it is portrayed as a far better alternative than an innocent man being wrongly convicted. It is as Juror Eight tells the other members “I may be trying to let a guilty man go free, I don’t know. Nobody really can. But we have a reasonable doubt, and that’s something that’s very valuable in our system”. This notion of reasonable doubt is tested several times in the play and we discover that is due to this concept that most of the jurors change their mind. Reasonable doubt is effective in shifting perspectives and strengthening the juror’s conviction that they “don’t have to defend [their] decision to [others]. [They] have reasonable doubt in [their] mind”. Even the Fourth Juror experiences this persuasive potential of questioning deliberations as he “takes a handkerchief and mops his suddenly sweating forehead”. This is symbolic of the power of reasonable doubt as even while the pouring rain cools the atmosphere of the jury room, a man who claims not to be able to sweat finds his brow moist and uncomfortable. Accordingly, the emphasis on reasonable doubt supports the ultimate message of the play which is that justice is most important and must be allowed to prevail.
Subsequently, Reginald Rose is predominantly concerned that one embraces their civic responsibility and aids the legal system in serving its purpose of administering justice. Rose’s focus is to illustrate the importance of the jury system and active citizenship in democracy which is shown through the symbolism of the New York skyline outside of the jury room’s window, indicating that what happens in jury rooms will impact on wider America. Consequently, the jury’s role is not to establish the truth but to deliberate on whether or not reasonable doubt exists so as to ensure that the American judicial system is a just one. Furthermore, the very sparseness of the set, the indifferent mise-en-scene of the “scarred table...with twelve chairs around it”, allowed the dialogue to come to the fore unencumbered and hence compels the audience to focus all their attention on the discussion process. Some members of the jury such as Juror Two claim that they believe the defendant is guilty because “nobody proved otherwise”. However, this perception is immediately challenged by Juror Eight. He states that “nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution”. Thus, illustrating that what the jury is intended for is not to discover the truth but to guarantee that there is no injustice in the legal system. Furthermore, Juror Eight can be described as a vigilante as he acknowledges, “that’s right, I broke the law” after presenting the jury room with the identical knife. By painting Juror Eight as paladin, the play highlights the need for individual vigilance in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice rather than to establish a truth. Additionally, the jury and the audience never discover whether the defendant did murder his further and, like the judge, the defendant is never physically present on stage. This further exemplifies how his guilt or innocence seems almost irrelevant in the bigger picture and that rather than being a specific or particular case, the trial which unfolds is a broader representation of the reliability and fairness of the jury system as a whole. Therefore, what has been defended in the jury room is not the young man accused but the legal system itself, as a legitimate means of obtaining justice with the help of those who recognise their civic responsibility.
Throughout the play, Rose never shows a need for the ultimate truth about the defendant’s guilt. Conversely, he regularly acknowledges that no juror can ever “really know what the truth is. No one ever will”, which elucidates how Rose is not interested in the guilt or innocence of the accused, but rather whether there is any reasonable doubt or not. Furthermore, through the use of the Eighth Juror, Rose demonstrates the significance of the individual in preserving justice and upholding the merits of open deliberation. Thus, Twelve Angry Men is a tribute to the legal system and its ability to achieve justice above all else which is the “remarkable thing about democracy”.
Home
Help
Search
Login
