Jury In “Twelve Angry Men” Essay

i. why is it so onerous for the gore in Twelve Angry Men to murder its final finding of fact? blush wine shows that in Twelve Angry Men it is difficult to reach a verdict when jurors fundament bothy constitute pre conceived ideas and bring own(prenominal) disfavor in a case, along with Jurors that lack interest. These factors undoubtedly causality conflict and impediment in the Jury scheme, which highlights a capability weakness in the democratic process. The bowl over also arises from the fact that Juror 8 is one of the few Jurors to initially deliberate honestly and thoughtfully and befoolks to obtain justice. uprise suggests that there needs to be active participation In ensuring the jury clay operates as intended, and when there is, the final verdict is easier to achieve. move up suggests that it is hard for the Jury to reach its verdict when Jurors stupefy pre-conceived ideas and show racism.Rose showcases the trouble in individuals having personal prejudice i n a case as it can blind them from the facts. This in turn, hinders the Jurors to muster to an agreement, as it thwarts their ability to reason and see things from some others point of view. This notion is highlighted through the bitter Juror 10, who Is the embodiment of racism and prejudice. Juror 10 signifies the potential power of racism, as he believes the kids who crawl fall outta those places are real trash. Ultimately, this pre conceived idea creates difficulty in constructing a rational opinion on the case, as this belief closes the door on his ability to think from another perspective. In addition, It is difficult for him to reach an agreement as he isnt ready to dissect the facts from the fancy.This is encourage underpinned, as he cant see the evidence from another perspective, as he is pallid and tired of facts. His inability to consider another point of view articulates his close-minded character, that cant see past his racism and pre conceived ideas. His resentmen t and bitterness is manifested in his behaviour, as he is suddenly angry or disgusted. This allows Rose to condemn those who cant see past their prejudice and justify why it is difficult for him to come to an understanding as his anger showcases his irrational and illogical character. Through Juror 10 Rose suggests that when individuals bring pre-conceived ideas and arnt prepared to deliberate truthfully it is difficult to come to an unanimous verdict.Rose also underpins the difficulty in glide path to a final verdict by showcasingindividuals that bring personal prejudice in a case. Through juror 3, Rose underlines the effect personal prejudice can have on ones ability to deliberate fairly. Juror 3s emotional baggage hinders him from world able to go through the democratic process properly and determine the guilt or artlessness of the defendant. Rose suggests that without careful deliberation it is hard to come to an agreed verdict as prejudice prevents individuals from carrying out their civic duty. Juror 3s personal prejudice and experience is highlighted through his belief that the defendant has got to burn, which suggests that it is hard to see ideas from anothers view point, if an individual is more concerned with their personal problems.The difficulty in reaching a final verdict for juror 3 is underlined through his inability to get word to the other Jurors opinions, and is only able to agree with those who see it from his point of view. This is underlined through him constantly agreeing with those who pick apart the boy as he comments listen to this man. He knows what hes talking roughly and thats absolutely right. His personal prejudice prevents him from having an open mind about the other Jurors opinions and can only agree with those who criticize the defendant. Through this, Rose comments on how difficult it is to reach a final verdict when Jurors that show prejudice arent open minded and arnt willing to discuss alternative ideas.Rose underli nes how difficult it can to be reach a final verdict when individuals show a lack of interest for the case and arnt prepared to think for themselves. Rose implies that those who arnt willing to take the case seriously are a danger to the system and fake it a struggle to come to a final agreement. Juror 7 is apathetic to the jury process, as he is more concerned with his own welfare than deliberating honestly and discussing the case. He represents those who place self interest above civic duty, which makes it harder for him to contribute to the final verdict outcome.His impatience and belief that discussing the case break out be fast articulates his self centered nature and how he is more concerned with his own personal desires. In addition, it is through Juror 6 that contributes to the difficulty in coming to an unanimous verdict, as he isnt prepared to think for himself. His lack of confidence and inability to contribute to the case is highlighted through him verbal expression he isnt used to supposing. Rosesuggests that in order for a verdict to be reached, all members must participate in an open discussion.While it is difficult to reach a final verdict, Rose suggests that the jury system requires participation in order for a verdict to be achieved. Juror 8 is one of the few Jurors that is prepared to stand up against the majority and defend the democratic process. It is difficult to reach a final verdict as Juror 8 initially is the only one who sees this as grave responsibility as the death sentence is mandatory. He shows his concern for the case as he provokes discussion and seeks to obtain justice. However, it is when many of the other jurors arnt able to follow the process suggests that coming to an agreement is hard without active participation.It is through the active participation that allows the process to thrive and make it easier to come to a verdict. This is evident through quiet Jurors such as Juror 2 to participate and make a plowshare to t he case, making it easier to come to a final verdict. This is highlighted as he questions evidence about the business about the stab wound and how it was made. His ability to participate in discussion suggests that participation is intrinsic in coming to a final verdict. In addition, Juror 9s involvement picks up on the old ladys eyesight, which is a leading factor to the final verdict. Therefore Rose stresses that in order for a final verdict to be reached, participation is required from the jury system. In addition, without contribution it makes it difficult to come to an agreement.Rose stresses how difficult coming to a unanimous agreement is when Jurors have pre conceived ideas, prejudice, racism and arnt interested in taking an interest in the case. However, he suggests that when Jurors make a contribution and actively participates an agreement is finally reached.