© Conquest Education

TWELVE ANGRY MEN ASSERTS THAT JUSTICE IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE

TRUTH. DISCUSS.

By the conclusion of Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men, the audience is left questioning the

truth behind the case. As the real occurrences behind the victim’s murder are never

disclosed, the play asserts that the procuring of justice is more important than the acquiring

of truth. Additionally, emphasis on the deliberation process suggests that the actually event

itself is irrelevant in comparison to the condemning of “evidence.” Rose also demonstrates

the propensity of prejudice and past experience in corrupting the jury system, further

accentuating the importance of a just process over the determination of truth. At the finale,

a not-guilty verdict passed despite not knowing the truth, epitomising the reality that justice

is more essential to the judicial system.

Throughout the entire play, the truth behind the victim’s murder remains elusive, indicative

of the play’s emphasis of justice over fact. The play unfolds in a “large drab room” where

jurors attempt to “separate the facts from the fancy.” Neither the defendant, nor the victim,

enter the plot at any point, directing the focus onto the “honest” and “thoughtful”

discussion between the jurors. The 8th juror insightfully notes that “we may be trying to

release a guilty man back into the community. No one can really know.” This concise

explanation alludes to the reality that truth is obscure at best and indeterminable at worst.

As such, the abstract nature of truth suggests that justice is more important. While “no one

…will” ever truly know what happened on the night of the murder, the jurors in the play can

ensure that the defendant receives a “fair trial” through fulfilling their “grave

responsibility.” Though this responsibility is somewhat ignored by jurors at the

commencement of the play, indicated by the eleven to one guilty vote, eventually the

notion of “reasonable doubt” prevails and a just verdict is returned.

The play revolves around deliberation process, placing attention on the just process rather

than the real event. While the jurors discuss events which actually occurred, such as the old

man walking to the door “in fifteen seconds” and the woman across the street witnessing

the murder, none of the individuals can declare their belief as certain. Indeed, some jurors

such as juror 3 and 10 allege that the case is “obvious” and “one of those open and shut

things,” but the 8th provides insight on the reality that no one “really know(s) what the truth

is.” The discussions which develop in the jury room eventually suggest that the

“prosecution’s case” was based on largely “circumstantial evidence.” It was unlikely that the

old man could “make it to the door in fifteen seconds” and that the woman could “identify a

person sixty feet away without glasses. In the dark.” These revelations allowed justice to be

served to the defendant, because the jurors were adequately differentiating between “fact”

and “fancy.” Though true fact was never exposed, a just verdict resulted from the jury’s

deliberations, indicative that justice is far more important that the truth.

© Conquest Education

A central theme of the play is the concept that bigoted generalisations have the capacity to

undermine the just nature of the system. From the outset, it is evident that prejudice was a

major influence in the jury room, directing some jurors such as jurors 3, 7 and 10, to voting

guilty because “you could see it.” While the prejudiced jurors claimed their beliefs to be

“(irrefutable) fact,” the reasonable and logical 8th juror emphasised multiple times that he

“does not know” the “facts of the case.” The eventual quashing of bigoted beliefs,

symbolised by the disapproving remarks made towards juror 10’s rant, signifies that the

enemy of justice was nullified. Though this allows justice to triumph in the case, the truth

remains ever ambiguous as “prejudice obscures the truth.” It is interesting to note that even

when the not-guilty verdict is achieved, some individuals such as juror 10 “couldn’t care

less” about the fate of the defendant, meaning some prejudice remains present in the room

despite the deliberations. Unfortunately the jurors are all equally human and prone to

biased views, and thus the play shows how truth will always remain obscure. As truth is

indefinable, justice is more important, because through an “honest” and “thoughtful”

debate, a just verdict can, and does, result.

Despite not knowing the true facts, “we have a verdict” says the foreman, embodying the

concept of justice above truth. Even at the closing moments of the play, the jurors remain

unsure if the defendant was actually guilty or not. However, after hours of deliberations on

“the hottest day of the year,” the final verdict is a just one, as there is sufficient reasonable

doubt to question the accused’s guilt. While the jurors are only “supposing” if the defendant

really did murder his father, they came to the collective decision that it was more likely that

the teenager was in fact innocent. In reality, the returning of such a verdict is a bold one, as

it assumes that the defendant is “innocent until proven guilty,” despite the chance that a

“guilty man” could be released “back into the community.” However, reasonable doubt “is

an safeguard of enormous value in our system,” guiding jurors the declare the boy’s

innocence without knowledge of the truth. The teenager is redeemed from a premature

death by “electric chair,” and the adequate deliberation suggests that justice had emerged

from the jury room. As such, the play does emphasise the importance of justice, over the

idea of truth.

The reality of the judicial process is the impossibility to attain truth in the fullest. Reginald

Rose’s Twelve Angry Men never divulges the truth, and does not include the real events

themselves in the plotline. Rather, the play places emphasis on the deliberation process and

the unexpected not-guilty verdict, thus asserting the importance of justice over truth. As

suggested by Twelve Angry Men, discovering complete truth is a human impossibility and

unfortunately, an entity that “no one ever will” know.