•Juror 8’s admirable character, the way he approaches the case
•Not allowing personal views or opinions to influence his decision
•The challenge of presenting his view across to other jurors
•Wanting to go home
•The fact that had he not been there, the boy would have been found guilty
•Seen as a hero
•Rose wanted to highlight what it could mean to be someone like Juror 8
Considering someone a “hero” comes down to a personal opinion that is greatly unique to each individual, however there is no doubt that Twelve Angry Men shows Juror 8 to be a hero to all. Whilst defining a hero is something that is done on a case-by-case basis, they are generally seen to be admirable people who possess a certain degree of bravery, loyalty and respect. Juror 8 is someone who can be seen to have all of these qualities, and approaches the position of being a jury member with a very open mind, of which Reginald Rose illustrates to be a desirable characteristic especially given the decision that needs to be made in relation to the accused’s life. Juror 8 also overcomes the challenge of expressing his reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty to all the other jurors, facing incredible prejudice and bias against what he says. Rose above all though shows Juror 8’s heroism to the reader when at the conclusion of the play they realise that had Juror 8 not been a part of the jury, the boy most likely would have been wrongly been found guilty.
Whilst we are not told much about the person Juror 8 is, it’s through his actions and words that we learn he is a very respectable individual. His occupation as an architect allows us to assume he is well educated, and his patience with even the most intolerable men is admirable when they claim being a part of the jury is a “goddam waste of time”. The reader also begins to see Juror 8 as an...