Twelve Angry Men is a dramatization happened in a jury room uncovering how a reasonable and just result is so subject to the readiness of the members of the jury to stay liberal with the full utilization of their forces given. Unmistakably the writer, Reginald Rose, depicts how the jury misuse the power they were offered because of the danger of preference and the self-satisfied methodology during their municipal obligation. Be that as it may, there are people who exploit the power they were given “genuinely and mindfully”
As reality about the respondents honesty is left dubious towards the finish of the play, this shows the careless methodology that the attendants show during their community duty as members of the jury. In spite of the way that the members of the jury are looked with ‘grave obligation’ of thinking, a portion of the legal hearers couldn’t mind less and shaped the biased “blameworthy” vote, featuring their absence of municipal obligation . Shown through the round of “tic-tac-toe” between Juror 3 and Juror 12, this accentuates how thoughtless the members of the jury were about the considerations. Further symbolized by the “scarred table”, recommends that even past legal hearers have prefered to engraving out the table out of sheer bordem than defy the reality of their jobs as attendants. Moreover, Juror 7’s comments of “god damn exercise in futility” mirrors his absence of municipal obligation as he “couldn’t care less” regardless of whether the kid faces a liable or not liable decision. This, notwithstanding the absence of metro obligation and duties of certain hearers, we can see how power is mishandled in the jury room.
Rose undertakings to feature to the group of spectators how the nearness of preferential assessments result in a maltreatment of intensity. Exhibited through the plot gadget of the setting, Rose accentuates the suffocation and abuse that stems from preference which is symbolized by the “smothering warmth”. The smothering warmth, is extreme to exhibit the segregation and pressure that emerge from certain attendants which majorly affects the frames of mind of the members of the jury towards the litigant because of their horrible sentiments and convictions. This is exhibited through Juror 10’s comments of “You can not trust a word they state” as “they are conceived liars” shows his mind-boggling disdain towards individuals from the “ghettos”, which means individuals from “low financial foundations” that vary from him.
Besides, it is apparent that Juror 10 likewise observes the litigant as an agent of “a gathering” as opposed to a person. This enables him to effectively trust that the denounced knifed his own dad and consequently, instead of look at the case in a very much contemplated and target way, he utilizes all his capacity to send the kid off to the “hot seat”. In this manner, plainly his partialities derail view of “reality” and that he abuses his forces to attempt to execute the litigant.
Be that as it may, there are people who are available in the jury room who exploit their forces to achieve a last decision in a goal way. Used through Juror 8, his comments of “I can’t send a kid off to kick the bucket” without “discussing it first” exhibits how he is paying attention to his obligation of an attendant and is set up to invest energy examining the case, instead of conceding to a mind lion’s share of feelings who don’t scrutinize the certainties which is symbolized by the stage course of the “stops” before Juror 8 talks. This shows how he was feeling “legitimate and attentive” about the considerations which was at first taught by the judge.
Moreover, Juror 8’s last activities of helping Juror 3 put on his coat reminds us how empathetic he is and is obliging towards his kindred people. Additionally, the segregation of Juror 10 towards the finish of the play shows how power is utilized accurately in the jury room. As the members of the jury understood that Juror 10 was an “insensible” with his racial preferences, he was advised to “plunk down and shut [his] grimy mouth”. This showcases how the members of the jury utilized their consolidated powers accurately to close out individuals with biases in the jury room.