Achieving justice usually requires struggle. It’s importance makes it essential, therefore the struggle is inevitable. Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men shows that the jurors have a tough time deciding upon the guilt of the accused. There are two opposing views of justice based on the evidence given.
As the 8th juror and others join, the audience sees a perspective of justice that favors the accused and that wants most for him to have a fair shot. “Everybody deserves a fair trial. That’s the system.” To the 8th Juror, the boy's poor and troubled upbringing, his state-appointed defense attorney, and the jury's quick near-decisive decision to convict him are all unfair forms of injustice.
This contradicts with the other members of the jury, as they feel the accused is clearly guilty, and anything other than conviction or execution is a short of justice. They are driven to believe that the facts provided by the witnesses are true without actually seeing the logic behind it. “Let’s stick to the facts” quoted the 4th juror. The 8th juror, however, is devoted to prove the innocence of the accused by examining every fact thoroughly and finding any loophole to support his theory.
To prove one’s innocence in the eyes of the indecisive juries isn’t an easy task, although it is possible, the 8th juror spends the rest of the play urging the others to practice patience, and to contemplate the details of the case. He discusses the relevance of the witness testimony and is convinced that there is reasonable doubt.
The 3rd juror finds it even more of a struggle to accept the 8th juror’s theory, “We’re letting him slip through our fingers here!” He makes a passionate plea to convict the boy, which slowly descends into a rant that makes it very clear, he is unable to separate his feelings for his own son and the defendant.
At the very end, the 8th juror persuades the other jurors to acquit the defendant. He gets them to do what is right, following their honest and...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document