The Judicial System In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

Like any piece of fiction, whether it be a short story, play, or possibly a novel, all are written with a specific purpose in mind. Usually, authors of fictional writing take entertainment into consideration when mapping out the subliminal purpose they intend to display for their audience. Reginald Rose, the author of Twelve Angry Men, could have written this play for multiple reasons. However, as a reader, it is critical to conclude that it was written for at least two solid purposes instead of assuming a vast assortment of insignificant reasons that may not make sense. In my opinion, Reginald Rose’s purpose for writing Twelve Angry Men was to portray that even in the judicial system, it is almost impossible to avoid the idea of mob mentality and bias because of personal experience and the prejudice of others.
People whom observe the judicial system from afar can come to the conclusion that justice may be “blind”. However, this is not always true. In Rose’s piece of writing, it becomes the duty of twelve jurors to “try and separate the facts from the fancy” (Rose, 5). This means that the jurors would have to decide whether or not a 16-year-old boy was guilty of allegedly stabbing his father to death and committing “murder in the first degree- premeditated homicide” (Rose, 5).
Just by reading the play, we, the readers, understand that despite the evidence that may be presented or the setting and state of being a person might find themselves in, factors such as prejudice and individuality or conformity will somehow end up leading to mob mentality and/or a strong emotional bias. No matter how hard one may try to avoid the inevitable, they will never be fully successful in doing