Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

In the drama Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, there are twelve jurors to discuss and deliberate if the murder in the first degree is guilt or not. Because the verdict must be unanimous, twelve jurors have a critical thinking in their discussion and finally made the vote from eleven jurors vote for guilty to unanimous vote for not guilty. During the development of the voting, Juror Three is hardly to persuade because he has a serious prejudice to the murder. If Juror Three does not admit the murder is not guilty, they cannot settle a lawsuit. Therefore, Juror Three’s prejudice should be the key to get the final verdict. Juror Three has a strong prejudice for the murder because he has a similar experience with his son. He transfer his anger to the suspect, and keep his prejudice for the murder is guilty. Because Juror Three’s
He also accustomed to forcing his wishes and views upon others (1). Therefore, during the developing of the voting, Juror Three try to force people to admit his prejudice continuously. If people do not agree his view and vote for not guilty, he is angry and interrupt other Jurors’ discussion. Even though other jurors support appropriate assumption and evidence to prove the murder is not guilty, Juror Three do not believe and keep his prejudice which has logical fallacies. For example, when Juror Nine change his vote in the second voting for not guilty, and want to explain the reason why he change his mind, Juror Three answers, “No, we wouldn’t like to know why”(12). When Juror Eight try to measure how long the old man can walk in 15 minutes, and walk as slowly as the old man who uses canes. However, Juror Three says, “You made it sound like a long walk. It’s not,” (19) and when Juror Eleven thinks Juror Eight’s behavior can be an important point. Juror Three declares, “It’s a ridiculous waste of time”