Download pdf - 26 August Inside Stories for 2011- Twelve angry menlstrathmoreesl.wikispaces.com/file/view/VATE+.pdf · VATE INSIDE STORIES – TWELVE ANGRY MEN 2 INTRODUCTION Reginald Rose was born

,16,'( 6725,(67ZHOYH�$QJU\�0HQ�E\�5HJLQDOG�5RVH

7HDFKLQJ�QRWHV�SUHSDUHG�E\�-DQ�0D\

VATE INSIDE STORIES – TWELVE ANGRY MEN

1

TWELVE ANGRY MEN

By Reginald Rose.

Teaching notes prepared by Jan May.

Edited by Laura Deriu.

Cover design by Viveka de Costa.

Formatting by Maria Anagnostou.

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................2

WAYS INTO THE TEXT..............................................................................................4

RUNNING SHEET AND STRUCTURE OF THE TEXT...............................................7

A PERSPECTIVE ON THE TEXT .............................................................................12

CHARACTERS..........................................................................................................14

ISSUES AND THEMES.............................................................................................19

LANGUAGE AND STYLE..........................................................................................23

CLOSE STUDY .........................................................................................................25

FURTHER ACTIVITIES.............................................................................................29

KEY QUOTES ...........................................................................................................31

TEXT RESPONSE TOPICS......................................................................................33

REFERENCES, RESOURCES AND SUPPLEMENTARY TEXTS ...........................34


2

INTRODUCTION Reginald Rose was born in New York in 1920. He enlisted in the United States army after the Japanese bombings of Pearl Harbour, serving in the Philippines and Japan. Post-war, he gained employment in the publicity department of the Warner Brothers studio and also started to pursue his teenage dream of being a writer. His first play, The Bus to Nowhere, was sold for television in 1950. In 1954, Rose served on a jury for the first time; a manslaughter case, which took eight hours of angry argument to reach a unanimous verdict. Fascinated by this experience, Rose wrote Twelve Angry Men in 1954 as a one-hour drama for CBS television.

In the 1950s television content was quite different to that of today. Still in its early years, and not yet available in Australia, television companies looked for tightly written drama that could be screened live from the studio. By the 1960s, technical advancements meant that programs could be filmed and then edited for later viewing. Twelve Angry Men was a great success and was subsequently published in script form, allowing it to be regularly acted on stage in many countries. In 1957, a film version 12 Angry Men, directed by Sidney Lumet, was released starring Henry Fonda as Juror 8. It was an immediate hit, being nominated for the Oscars, winning six Emmy awards and numerous other accolades in America and overseas. Rose continued writing for television for many years. He was a regular writer for the TV series, The Defenders, and wrote screenplays for films such as The Wild Geese, The Sea Wolves and Whose Life is it Anyway? Many of his plays and films continued to focus on juvenile delinquency which he had explored in Twelve Angry Men. Reginald Rose died in 2002.

Twelve Angry Men was inspired by Rose’s own experiences of jury duty on a manslaughter case in New York. Initially reluctant to serve on a jury, he changed his mind: ‘the moment I walked into the courtroom … and found myself facing a strange man whose fate was suddenly more or less in my hands’. (‘Author’s Commentary’ on Twelve Angry Men in Six Television Plays). His entire attitude changed and Rose immersed himself in the world of the jury room. The serious responsibility of the situation impressed him; he and his fellow eleven jurors would make a decision of absolute finality. Intrigued by the notion that absolutely no one but the twelve jurors knew what went on in the jury room, he decided to write a play capturing the excitement, tension and gravity of the deliberations behind locked doors.

Rose set out to raise issues of justice and morality, helping his audience see past stereotypes and prejudices. It is this central focus of the play which Year 12 students will need to understand. Students will need to remember that the play was written in the mid-1950s when jury decisions were indeed influenced by views, controversial as they were, that existed at that time. Rose was writing at a time which had seen much post-war migration, fear of communism (for example, the Cold War and the HUAC trials chaired by Senator Joseph McCarthy), as well as continued racial segregation in America. Juries were very much the realm of white, Anglo-Saxon males. By drawing on this social background of the time, Rose was able to emphasise the play’s key theme that justice prevails, even when only one person stands up for what they believe is right and just.

The play takes place on an oppressively hot summer’s day in 1953. Twelve jurors leave the court for the jury room with the presiding judge’s words ringing in their


3

ears. The judge has reminded them of their sworn duty to examine the testimony they have heard during the trial and separate fact from fancy to reach a unanimous verdict. If the jurors all agree that there is no reasonable doubt, they will return with a verdict of ‘guilty’ and the defendant will be sentenced to death; if they all agree ‘reasonable doubt’ does exist, their verdict will be ‘not guilty’. As the play gets underway, it appears that some jurors heed the words of the judge more carefully than others.

Initial discussion indicates that the jurors seem certain that the verdict is obvious — the defendant without a doubt murdered his father. However, when the first vote is taken, a show of hands indicates that Juror 8 is voting ‘not guilty’; he has doubts.

Throughout the jury’s deliberations, Juror 8 attempts to create ‘reasonable doubt’ about the defendant’s guilt. Although not entirely sure that the defendant is actually innocent, he is very conscious that a young man’s life hangs in the balance and that a fair, reasoned discussion is the least the jury can do. He wants to examine the evidence closely and ensure that the integrity of a democratic jury process is maintained. However, in his attempts to search for the truth, Juror 8 encounters apathy, prejudice and the biased preconceptions of other jurors. Some jurors believe strongly that those who live in slums, as does the defendant, must be criminals. Several jurors are simply keen to get home after several days of being cooped up in the court room; they are uninterested in the process and cling to their original ‘guilty’ votes. As deliberations continue, frictions and frustrations are exposed in the hot, stuffy jury room. Jurors 9 and 11 give their support to Juror 8 as they start to experience doubt as various ambiguities in the evidence are exposed. These two men are also fair-minded, commonsensical and value the integrity of the jury process. Jurors 3, 7 and 10 are exposed as their antagonists. These three men judge the defendant on his background and find it difficult to separate their personal beliefs from fact. Juror 3 brings ‘baggage’ from his estranged relationship with his own young son, Juror 10 is a prejudiced bigot whilst Juror 7 is impatient with the proceedings and doesn’t really care; he just wants to get to his baseball game.

One by one, the other jurors begin to have ‘reasonable doubt’ as various ambiguities in the evidence are highlighted. The murder weapon, an unusual knife comes under scrutiny when Juror 8 presents one exactly the same. This persuades Juror 9 to change his vote. Doubt is cast on the old man’s witness testimony and the father’s history of violence is considered. Juror 5 changes his vote. Questions are asked about the defendant’s return to the scene of the crime. The next vote sees Juror 11 changing to ‘not guilty’ as he now entertains ‘reasonable doubt’. Juror 8 re-enacts the old man’s movements on the night of the murder raising doubts about the plausibility of his evidence. Jurors 3, 7 and 10 remain argumentative and hostile and Act 1 concludes with Juror 3 threatening to kill Juror 8, a pivotal moment as it contradicts his earlier argument. Juror 11 emerges as a strong advocate for justice and the vote is now 6-6 as a storm metaphorically breaks outside. As further discussions consider the strength of the defendant’s alibi and the angle of the knife thrust, two other jurors change their votes to ‘not guilty’. Jurors 4 and 10 still believe strongly in the boy’s guilt, although one bases his belief on logic and the other on prejudice. Juror 10’s prejudiced tirade against those from the same background as the defendant, silences the other men and is a dramatic peak of the play. After the woman’s testimony is questioned, the vote is now 11 to 1 in favour of ‘not guilty’. Only Juror 3 stands alone, reminding us of Juror 8’s stance at the beginning of


4

deliberations. However, Juror 8 stood alone for admirable reasons. Juror 3 cannot yet shed his personal bias and anger against the defendant and it isn’t until he breaks down whilst trying to defend his stance, that he finally realises the truth. He changes his vote and the jury now has a unanimous verdict of ‘not guilty’.

Twelve Angry Men will make for exciting reading in the classroom and provides much opportunity for students to evaluate each of the jurors as well as explore notions of justice, truth, standing up for one’s beliefs and those who argue with their emotions rather than with reasoned logic. They should be encouraged to study the play, using the same qualities that jurors are asked to bring to the jury room; careful listening skills, an open mind without prejudice or bias, fairness and impartiality, objectivity, common sense and an ability to listen to all the evidence before making up their minds.


5

WAYS INTO THE TEXT • Students should be reminded of the elements of drama as a genre. Discussion

will be needed about the importance of the set, stage directions, dialogue, plot development, creation of tension, characterisations and how all of these contribute to the themes and issues explored by the playwright.

• Twelve Angry Men needs some pre-teaching of legal terminology and the historic basis of the trial by jury process in America. The Victorian jury system has a number of similarities and many of the concepts in the play can be considered before it is read in class. The Victorian Juror’s Handbook which can be downloaded from the internet is a valuable tool. It is also worth showing students the Sixth Amendment to the American Constitution so that they are familiar with its wording before they read the play.

• Revise terminology such as ‘protagonist’ and ‘antagonist’, as well as providing definitions of the different types of irony — verbal, dramatic and situational. Literary devices such as sarcasm, hyperbole and rhetorical questions can also be revised.

• Ask the class to brainstorm the title of the play and theorise about why the twelve men are angry.

• Arrange a witness exercise for the class. Ask some colleagues or other students to help you carefully pre-arrange a scripted ‘incident’ (passive rather than active, of course). After the students have witnessed the incident, make them immediately write down what they have seen and heard. This is their ‘witness account’. The class can share their witness accounts and discuss the similarities and discrepancies. Filming the incident if possible could also add to the significance of the exercise. After discussion, the class can watch what really happened and see how accurate they were as witnesses. This can lead into a discussion about the reliability of witnesses. Alternatively, students could watch a brief crime scene re-enactment from a Crime Stoppers advertisement (see YouTube) for this exercise.

• Discuss the diversity of people on juries and why some people are exempted from jury duty. The Legal Studies teacher in your school might have a ‘mock case’ the class could use. Get students to role-play the jury discussion about the case.

• Find newspaper clippings about court cases, now or in the past, and ask students whether they think the jury made the right decision, based on the evidence provided. The Lindy Chamberlain trial would be interesting.

• Discuss the role of evidence in a trial. What is ‘real’ evidence? What is circumstantial evidence? Perhaps a guest speaker could be organised.

• Discuss the difference between ‘no doubt’ and ‘reasonable doubt’. Make up some scenarios for the students.

• Talk about reason and logic. Give students clear definitions and/or some simple exercises to help them understand these terms. There might be an old copy of Stands to Reason on the shelves of your school library.


6

• Read David Mamet’s introduction to the play to the class and consider the implications of his words.

• Debate whether a jury of ordinary people is the best way to decide someone’s guilt or innocence. Should there be a panel of ‘expert’ people instead?

• Be wary of showing students the film before they read the play. Highlight that there are a number of differences, including additional dialogue and alterations to several characters in the film.


7

RUNNING SHEET AND STRUCTURE OF THE TEXT Please note that many earlier editions of the play were divided into three acts. The Penguin edition for study in Year 12 VCE English is divided into two acts.

ACT 1 It is a hot summer afternoon in 1957, when a jury of twelve men is sent to consider their verdict in the jury room of a New York Court of Law. The drab jury room contains the bare essentials; washroom, lavatory, a water cooler, fan and a large table surrounded by twelve chairs. When the curtain opens, the room is empty and the audience hears the voice of the judge in the case. The legal aspects of the case, a murder in the first degree, are concluded and he instructs the jury about their responsibilities: ‘It now becomes your duty to try and separate the facts from the fancy’. (p.5) The twelve men are reminded of their duty to deliberate honestly and thoughtfully. The judge also emphasises the concept of ‘reasonable doubt’; if there is reasonable doubt, a verdict of ‘not guilty’ must be returned. If there is no reasonable doubt, the accused is guilty and therefore the death sentence is mandatory. And so, with a final reminder that their verdict must be unanimous, the jury is empanelled in the jury room.

The jurors’ initial actions and informal discussion about the trial after entering the jury room are observed. The men appear ill at ease with each other and proceedings cannot start until each juror is ready; some need to use the bathroom and get a drink. One opens the window, another reads the paper. Juror 8 simply stares out the window. Conversation reflects a degree of boredom during the trial and it is clear that many of the jurors have already determined the defendant’s guilt. Already, before formal discussion has started, glimpses of the different traits of each juror are apparent. They react to the trial, the defendant and their role as jurors differently. Some are nervous and hesitant, others impatient, overconfident, sarcastic, prejudiced and also thoughtful. The potential for tension between the twelve men is evident. Added to this are the heat, lack of air-conditioning and a fan that appears not to work.

The Foreman tears up slips of paper for a ballot. Juror 2 and 3 exchange remarks. Juror 3 has never heard ‘so much talk about nothing’ whilst also revealing his bias against the defendant: ‘I think we’d be better off if we took these tough kids and slapped ‘em down before they make trouble … Save us a lot of time and money’. (p.7) Juror 4 reads a newspaper, Juror 5 says he never knew they locked the door. Juror 6 gazes out the window. Juror 7, a jokester and baseball fan with tickets to the evening game, believes the trial is a waste of time. He and Juror 10 ridicule the defendant’s story about the knife; they have decided their vote already. Juror 8 is also at the window, choosing not to interact with the others. Juror 9 goes to the lavatory. Juror 10 also reveals his prejudices. Juror 11 speaks with an accent. Juror 12 is impressed by the prosecuting attorney’s ability to present his points in a logical sequence.

The men, directed by the Foreman, sit at the table in order of their jury number. Jurors 8 and 9 are the last to be seated. Whilst the Foreman doesn’t want to impose


8

rules on the discussion, he does suggest an initial vote, reminding the men again of the seriousness of the charges and the consequences of a ‘guilty’ vote. The preliminary vote reveals more about the jury. Eleven vote ‘guilty’, one ‘not guilty’; but Rose’s stage directions indicate that ‘Seven or eight hands go up immediately. Several others go up more slowly’. (p.11) There are several jurors who are slightly hesitant about their vote. Juror 8 is the lone dissenting vote, a decision that frustrates Jurors 7 and 10; ‘Boy-oh-boy! There’s always one’. (p.11) Juror 3 demands to know whether Juror 8 really thinks the defendant is guilty. His answer is simple; ‘I don’t know’. He is uncertain about the question of guilt and wants to ascertain the truth through discussion before sending a boy off to die. This man is a fair and honest juror who understands the gravity of the task before them. Jurors 3, 10 and 7 challenge Juror 8, demanding an explanation for his ‘not guilty’ vote: ‘The man’s a dangerous killer. You could see it’. (p.11) The dissenting juror reminds Juror 3 who sees it as an ‘open and shut’ case that the defendant is not a man: ‘He’s sixteen years old’. Juror 6 joins in: ‘It’s pretty obvious. I mean, I was convinced from the first day’. (p.11) These men are not interested in discussion — they have already made up their minds.

Juror 8 just wants to talk and in response to Juror 10’s question, ‘Do you believe his story?’, he admits, ‘I don’t know whether I believe it or not. Maybe I don’t’. (p.12) He isn’t setting out to change the minds of the other jury members but feels the case deserves at least an hour of discussion before reaching a final verdict. Juror 8 has not jumped to immediate conclusions and is also conscious of the boy’s background and that he faces a death sentence if found guilty. The defendant is a young boy from a slum environment whose mother died when he was nine years old. Whilst his father was in jail, he was forced to spend eighteen months in an orphanage, not a great start for a sixteen year old who has now been charged with stabbing his father to death with a knife. Juror 8 reminds the others that the boy has ‘been kicked around all his life’ and also appeals to their sense of justice: ‘I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all’. (p.13)

Juror 10 reacts angrily. ‘We don’t owe him a thing. He got a fair trial, didn’t he?’ (p.13) He argues that the ‘kid’ can’t be believed due to his background: ‘Listen, I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say. I mean, they’re born liars’. (p.13) His prejudiced generalisation stereotypes the defendant and ‘his kind’. Juror 9, the older gentleman, brings wisdom to the discussion when he asks Juror 10 if he believes he has a monopoly of the truth: ‘It suddenly occurs to me that you must be an ignorant man’. (p.13) He realises that this juror, and perhaps some of the others, don’t possess a good understanding of the justice system and are inappropriately bringing their biases to the jury room.

Acting on the suggestion of Juror 12 that they each take a minute or two to convince Juror 8 that he is wrong, the Foreman proposes that they go around the table in order of jury numbers. Juror 2 nervously offers: ‘I thought it was obvious from the word go. I mean nobody proved otherwise’. Juror 8 has to remind him that there is no burden of proof on the defendant, only the prosecution. (p.14) Juror 3 believes strongly in facts. He refers to the testimony of the old man who overheard the fight in which the boy threatened to kill his father, heard the body fall to the floor and also saw the boy running from the apartment: ‘You can’t refute facts. The boy is guilty…he’s still got to pay for what he did’. (p.15) Juror 4 questions the defendant’s alibi that he was at the movies at the time of the killing. He believes the alibi is false


9

as the boy couldn’t remember the details of the movies he saw. Juror 10, forgetting that they are meant to contribute in order, raises the testimony of the woman who lived over the street: ‘If her testimony don’t prove it, nothing does’. (p.15) He details how she looked out the window at ten past twelve and saw the boy stab his father. Even though she saw the murder through the windows of a passing elevated train, Juror 10 believes, ‘They proved it’. (p.16) Once again, Juror 8 plays devil’s advocate, asking him, ‘How come you believe the woman? She’s one of “them”, too, isn’t she?’ (p.16) Juror 10 takes offence at this question, needing other jurors to try to break the tension. Juror 5 declines to comment whilst Juror 6 is convinced by the apparent motive — that the boy had an argument earlier in the evening overheard by neighbours. Juror 8, whilst not disputing the evidence, doesn’t believe that the argument is sufficient proof of a motive. He feels the boy has been hit so many times by his father, that violence is a normal part of life for him and thus the two slaps wouldn’t have been enough to provoke him. Juror 7 raises the boy’s criminal history and his known ability with switch knives: ‘He’s real quick with switch knives, they said. This is a very fine boy’. (p.17) Riled by this sarcasm, Juror 8 refers to the lifetime of beatings the defendant has experienced from his father: ‘It’s a motive for him to be an angry kid’. (p.17)

Juror 3 causes an escalation in dramatic tension with his tirade against kids nowadays and the revelation of the hostility existing between himself and his son. He proceeded to make ‘a man outa him’ when his only son, aged nine, embarrassed his father by running away from a fight. The son left home at sixteen after hitting his father and they haven’t seen each other since. This outburst suggests that Juror 3’s attitude towards the defendant could be a response to his relationship with his son. Juror 4 shifts the discussion back to the case at hand by reinforcing the argument that slums are breeding grounds for criminals; ‘It’s no secret. Children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society’. (p.18) Juror 10 agrees: ‘The kids who crawl outa those places are real trash’. (18) His judgemental interruption encourages Juror 5 to finally speak out about his own background. He has lived in a slum area all his life, works in Harlem nursing ‘that trash’ and takes personal umbrage at Juror 10’s attack. The jurors are interrupting each other, no longer speaking in turn. The Foreman tries to regain control, becoming furious when Juror 10 accuses him of acting like a ‘kid’. The Foreman angrily suggests that he take over the responsibility of the position: ‘You want to do it? Here. You sit here. You take the responsibility’. (p.19) Other jurors offer support but the Foreman becomes disheartened and it is a while before he fully involves himself again.

Juror 8 now argues his opposing position to the others. First of all, admitting that the testimony does make the boy look guilty, he says he has a peculiar feeling about the trial and the many unanswered questions it has raised for him. The boy’s lawyer was unimpressive and the evidence mainly circumstantial. Juror 8 questions the validity of the testimony given by the eyewitnesses and wonders why they weren’t challenged by the defence lawyer: ‘I’d want my lawyer to tear the prosecution witnesses to shreds’. (p.20) He also ponders whether the witnesses could simply be wrong; people can make mistakes. Juror 3 believes the evidence of the knife is irrefutable, a claim that pushes Juror 8 to ask to see the murder weapon exhibit again. Whilst it is fetched, Juror 4 presents his case concerning the knife. He uses a sequential list of facts about the knife, covering the boy’s admission of purchase, where it was bought, its unusual design, the storekeeper’s ID of it and the friends to whom the boy showed the knife. After these facts, the stories of the boy and the


10

prosecution diverge. The boy claims the knife fell through a hole in his pocket sometime between leaving the movies and arriving home. Juror 4 believes the boy didn’t go to the movies, instead staying home and stabbing his father after an argument, even remembering to wipe the knife clean of fingerprints. Juror 8 reminds him that it is possible the boy’s story is true and someone else could have stabbed his father with a similar knife.

The tactics Juror 8 uses to support this assertion bring new tension to the jury room. After both Jurors 3 and 4 claim the impossibility of the existence of a similar knife, Juror 8 produces one which is an exact replica, sticking it into the table beside the murder weapon. The other jurors are stunned at this turn of events, wanting to know how the knife was obtained. Juror 8 purchased it whilst on a walk through the boy’s neighbourhood the previous night but Juror 3 immediately labels the demonstration ‘a real bright trick’ that hasn’t proved anything. (p.23) After some heated exchange, Juror 5 admits, ‘I’m not sure...’. (p.25) which provokes Juror 3 to accuse Juror 8 of becoming the boy’s lawyer: ‘Who do you think you are to start cross-examining us?’ (p.25) Juror 8 believes that’s what should be happening in the jury room — all the evidence should be examined again very closely before the final verdict is given. Several jurors become antagonistic, believing that further discussion is pointless as the boy is guilty anyway. Juror 9 reminds them that, ‘It’s only one night. A boy may die’. (p.25) Some seem to have forgotten the responsibility invested in them by the judge at the start.

Juror 8 makes a proposition. He suggests another vote, this time by secret ballot and says he will abstain. If the rest of the jury vote ‘guilty’, he will change his vote to enable a verdict to be delivered. If anyone votes ‘not guilty’, then deliberations must continue. The vote is 10 to 1 in favour of ‘guilty’; someone has changed their vote and supported Juror 8 in his risky strategy. Juror 10 immediately demands to know who has changed their vote; whilst Juror 3 launches a scathing attack on Juror 5 whom he believes has changed his vote because of the influence of ‘this golden-voiced preacher over here’ (Juror 8) who tears out hearts with stories of a ‘poor little kid who just couldn’t help becoming a murderer’. (27) In the midst of the ensuing arguments, Juror 9 admits he was the one who changed his vote. He did so as he has been impressed by Juror 8 standing alone against the ridicule of others because he isn’t sure of the boy’s guilt: ‘He gambled for support and I gave it to him’. (p.28) This is too much for Juror 7 who goes to the bathroom, slamming the door as he enters. ‘He can’t hear you. He never will’, Juror 8 tells Juror 9.

They take a short break and some of the jurors take the opportunity to lobby others. Juror 11, a watchmaker, talks to Juror 12, an advertising agent. Juror 3 tries to apologise to Juror 5 who ignores him. Juror 7, a salesman, reiterates to Juror 8, an architect, that the boy is guilty. Juror 6 also tells him the same. Juror 8 asks him, ‘Suppose you were the one on trial?’ (p.30) Juror 6 says, ‘I am not used to supposing ... But I’ll try this one. Suppose you talk us all outa this and the kid really did knife his father?’ (p.30) The stage directions indicated that this is the very problem tormenting him; he does not know and never will.

Deliberation continues as some of the jurors try to convince Juror 8 of the boy’s guilt. He has raised the boy’s background; the jailed father who gambles compulsively, drinks heavily, is unemployed and is essentially a tough, cruel man. He is the sort of man who may have upset someone else enough to kill him. Juror 8 also assesses the testimonies of the two neighbours, searching for flaws in each one. He questions


11

how the old man, a stroke victim, could have heard the fight so clearly through the ceiling and open window, and also how the woman across the street was able to see the boy stab his father through the windows of a moving el train. It seems illogical that she could have a clear view from that vantage point. Juror 9 remembers observing the old man closely in court and develops a theory that he may have been seeking attention with his evidence: ‘A man like this needs to be recognised, to be listened to, to be quoted just once’. (p.36) As an old man himself, he feels empathy for this witness.

Juror 8 also wonders about the use of the phrase, ‘I’m going to kill you’. (p.37) People say it every day without really intending to carry through the threat; the phrase can simply be a figure of speech. Juror 3 doesn’t accept this logic and argues: ‘Anybody says a thing like that the way he said it, they mean it’. (p.37) Juror 2 understands the point Juror 8 was making, recalling his own recent use of the phrase. Juror 10 can’t accept such logic: ‘He’s a common ignorant slob. He don’t even speak good English’. (p.37) Juror 5 suddenly announces that he is changing his vote to ‘not guilty’, to which Juror 7 responds with disbelief and sarcasm: ‘What are you basing it on? Stories this guy made up’. Discussion moves on to the defendant’s lawyer who didn’t offer much of a defence. Juror 8 hypothesises that the young, court-appointed lawyer may have not wanted a case that was difficult to win and paid little.

Juror 11 now becomes the focus of attention as he raises a query about the boy’s decision to return to the scene of the crime. It seems odd that a guilty person would return several hours later when there is every chance that the police may be there. Whilst some jurors believe he had panicked and unintentionally left the knife behind, Juror 3 employs sarcasm. The boy came home to get his knife because ‘ … it’s not nice to leave knives sticking around in people’s chests’. (p.39) After this line of discussion, Juror 8 again raises the notion of ‘reasonable doubt’: ‘Maybe all those things are so. But maybe they’re not. I think there’s enough doubt to make us wonder whether he was there at all ...’ (p.40) This reasoning makes Juror 10 furious although Juror 5 offers support by reminding them that, ‘Witnesses can make mistakes’. (p.40) Another vote is called, despite Juror 3’s insistence that it’s a waste of time. But he is wrong; Juror 11 has changed his mind as he now believes he has ‘reasonable doubt’. The vote is 8 to 4.

Discussion shifts to the old man’s ability to get out of bed and to the door in time to see the defendant running down the stairs. The man is elderly and limps; this is enough to prompt Juror 8 to ask for a diagram of the apartment so he can assess whether the man could have made it to the door in 15 seconds. A re-enactment of the scene follows, despite Juror 3’s protests, suggesting that the time was more like 42 seconds. This is a crucial point in the play as the plausibility of the old man’s evidence is called into question and also his unreliability as a witness. Jurors 2, 5, 6, 9 and 12 all believe the re-enactment has been worthwhile. Act 1 concludes with an angry tirade from Juror 3. He accuses Juror 8 of manipulation: ‘You come in here with your sanctimonious talk about slum kids and justice ... and all of a sudden you start getting through to some of these old ladies in here’. (p.47) He’d like to ‘pull the switch’ himself. Juror 8 accuses him of ‘behaving like a self-appointed public avenger’. Now fiercely incensed, Juror 3 lunges at Juror 8 yelling: ‘Let go of me, God damn it! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!’ In saying these words, he bitterly realises that he has just proved Juror 8’s earlier claim about the use of these words.


12

ACT 2 The outburst leaves the men in awkward silence. It is getting later, the heat is oppressive and storm clouds have darkened the room. Only Juror 4 seems unaffected by the heat. The gathering storm outside seems to parallel events in the jury room. Juror 11 takes the lead and reminds them all of their responsibility to serve democratic justice on the defendant: ‘We have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict ... We should not make it a personal thing’. (p.50) Juror 12 proposes another vote. This time the vote is an open ballot; the result is 6 to 6. Jurors 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11 are all voting ‘not guilty’. Juror 10 tells these six that they are out of their minds for wanting to acquit ‘a kid like that’. (p.51) Juror 9 tries to remind him that facts, rather than character, should be the basis of their decision. As some of the jurors who still vote ‘guilty’ try to understand those who have changed position, the storm outside breaks and rain pours down. The harsh fluorescent lights now brighten the stage. Interaction occurs between the jurors as they take a break. The Foreman reveals more about himself to Juror 8. Juror 3 tells Juror 4 that the others had deliberately ‘baited’ him into anger. Juror 10 thinks it’s time to call a ‘hung jury’ as he can’t see that the minds of the jurors voting ‘guilty’ can be changed. Surprisingly, Juror 3 reminds him of the oath he took in the courtroom; he can’t just quit as it’s ‘dishonest’.

Jurors 10 and 7 tells the others they want to declare a ‘hung jury’ but the others aren’t in favour; they haven’t yet considered the verdict for long enough. When Juror 11 tries to remind Juror 7 of the concept of ‘reasonable doubt’, he is accused of arrogance. Juror 7’s prejudiced attitudes are again highlighted: ‘I’m tellin’ ya, they’re all alike. He comes over to this country running for his life...’. (p.55) Juror 5 jumps to Juror 11’s defence: ‘You mean you’re calling him arrogant because he wasn’t born here? Well, I’m calling you arrogant because you were’. (p.55) Juror 8 eases the tension by making them refocus on the case; he wants to go over the boy’s claim that he was at the movies. He feels that the boy’s stress at his father’s murder may have contributed to his inability to remember details about the films he saw. Juror 4 is disbelieving and claims that he would remember details if he were under pressure. Juror 8 then employs a clever tactic to make his point. He quizzes Juror 4 about movies he has recently seen. Put on the spot, Juror 4 cannot and the stage directions highlight his stress as he mops sweat from his brow.

The Foreman brings up the psychiatrist’s testimony that the boy had demonstrated strong homicidal tendencies. He argues that this proves the boy had intended to murder his father. Juror 10 who at first had ridiculed psychiatrists as ‘phoney’, contradicts himself when he responds to Juror 11’s assertion that all people have the potential to kill, but few actually do. He suddenly claims that if the psychiatrist said the kid was capable of killing, then he must be. His displeasure when Juror 8 highlights this contradiction is palpable. Debate shifts to the angle thrust of the knife. Juror 2 questions whether the boy, shorter than his father, could actually have stabbed downwards into the chest. Juror 5, coming from the slums has experience with knives, thinks this is a valid question and demonstrates the proper use of the knife to the other jurors. This demonstration raises reasonable doubt about whether the boy could have actually stabbed his father. Juror 12 is now swaying, but Juror 7 announces he is changing his vote. Doubt is cast on his reasons for now voting ‘not guilty’. Juror 11 feels he has changed his vote simply because he is sick of all the talking and wants to get to the baseball match for which he has tickets: ‘You have no


13

right to play like this with a man’s life. This is a terrible and ugly thing to do’. (p.63) Juror 7, put on the spot, is unable to articulate his reasons for voting ‘not guilty’.

Another vote is called for. It is now 9 to 3 in favour of ‘not guilty’; the Foreman and Juror 12 have changed their minds as well. Juror 10 now unleashes his frustrations on the others: ‘These people are born to lie ... They don’t know what truth is ... They are different. They think different. They act different’. (p.64) His temper rises as his prejudices are unleashed. Juror 5 goes to the washroom, slamming the door behind him. The tirade continues as some of the other jurors start moving around the room. ‘Do you know you’re a sick man?’, Juror 9 says to him. (p.65) This precipitates further abuse and Juror 10 continues his rant, using a jumble of rhetorical questions and hyperbole to further reinforce his opinions and prejudices: ‘That kid on trial, his type, they’re multiplying five times as fast as we are ... And they are — wild animals. They’re against us, they hate us, they want to destroy us’. (p.65) He finally ceases when Juror 4 tells him to sit down and not open ‘your filthy mouth again’. (66)

Juror 4 tries to argue the case for his belief that the defendant is guilty. He employs logic, acknowledging that some of the points raised are excellent, especially the query about the overhead stab wound but he still believes the woman who witnessed the murder. This logic is enough to sway Juror 12 to change his vote back to ‘guilty’. However, Juror 9, upon spotting Juror 4 removing his glasses and rubbing his eyes, is reminded of the deep marks on the side of the woman’s nose when giving evidence in court. He theorises that the woman’s vanity had stopped her from wearing glasses in court, and in fact, in most likelihood, she hadn’t been wearing glasses in bed the night of the murder. Therefore, she may not have clearly seen what happened, especially through the windows of the passing el train. Jurors 12 and 4 are now convinced there is enough reasonable doubt about this witness to change their votes to ‘not guilty’. Juror 10, still thinks the boy is guilty, but not caring anymore, changes his vote too.

Juror 3 has now lost the last of his allies. He is incensed, lashing out at Juror 10, and further infuriated when Juror 2 reminds him of his earlier statement that they could throw out all evidence except the woman’s testimony. He doesn’t care whether he is alone or not with his vote: ‘It’s my right’. (p.71) He calls the others ‘a lousy bunch of bleeding hearts’, who have twisted everything around and refuses to be intimidated by them. (p.72) The jury room is completely silent as Juror 3 transfers his anger towards his own son to the boy on trial: ‘That goddamn rotten kid. I know him. What they’re like. What they do to you. How they kill you every day ... Jeez, I can feel that knife goin’ in’. (p.72) He feels as he is the victim and his son, his murderer. Juror 8 reminds him: ‘It’s not your boy. He’s somebody else’. Juror 4 begs him: ‘Let him live’. (p.72) Finally, brought back to reality, Juror 3 says ‘not guilty’. The verdict is finally unanimous. The rain has stopped. Both the case and the storm are over.

Structure of the Play Twelve Angry Men is a play presented in two acts, although Rose’s original edition was divided into three. The trial has taken several days to complete, highlighted when one of the jurors tells another that it has been ‘hard week’. Juror 8 also provides a clue: ‘I sat there in court for three days while the evidence built up’. (p.19) The jury’s deliberation takes place over several hours on a Friday evening. The exposition of the play allows for establishing key background information, character


14

introductions, tone and setting — all necessary for the audience to understand what is taking place. There is also a gradual revelation of the defendant’s crime, his background and what has occurred in the courtroom prior to the jurors being sent to consider their verdict.

The play, originally written as a 55 minute television drama, is tautly constructed. Most of the dialogue is succinct, except for Juror 10’s long speech. Stage directions are important in highlighting pauses or breaks in the deliberations to the audience. At these times, some of the jurors move away from the table to the washroom, lavatory, water cooler or the window. This strategy allows jurors to exchange some dialogue in pairs or small groups and is not meant to be heard by the other jurors.

The structure also follows the juror deliberations and the gradual change from the initial vote of 11 to 1 ‘guilty’ to 11 to 1 ‘not guilty’; and then to reaching the unanimous verdict at the end. Each jury vote gives a sense of progression to the play. The only shift in this pattern is when Juror 12 briefly changes his vote back to ‘guilty’. Each piece of evidence and the creation of doubt over witness testimonies is carefully staged. Rose deliberately avoids the problem of the jury considering too much at the one time. He wants to strategically advance the action and complications of the deliberations. The discussion of the woman’s glasses that brings her evidence into question is the final link in the chain of doubt. Contrasting moods and tones of voice also contribute to the revelation of Twelve Angry Men’s various themes as do character disclosures. Jurors 3, 5, 6, 8, 11 and the Foreman all reveal personal information that adds to plot advancement through shock, suspense, tension and conflict.

Key Questions • Discuss the requirements for an event to be defined as a ‘turning point’ in the

play.

• What turning points can be found in Twelve Angry Men?

• Provide several examples that demonstrate how Rose controls the rise and fall of tension in the play.

• How are the deeper character traits of Jurors 3 and 10 exposed to the audience?

• Which evidence has the greatest effect on the course of the plot?

• Which jurors exert the most influence over others?

• Give examples of ‘complications’ in the plot that heighten tensions between the jurors.

• Is there more than one climax in the play?

• What is the effect of ending the play with Juror 8 helping Juror 3 with his coat?


15

A PERSPECTIVE ON THE TEXT Twelve Angry Men is a succinct, tightly constructed play that contains moments of great tension. Students will be engaged by the range of jurors, their deliberations that shift between reasoned and emotive contributions, and also the subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, shift in the jurors’ votes. It is a play that makes us think about our own prejudices as we realise that these twelve jurors represent a cross-section of society. One of them could be us at some stage of our lives.

Although an American play, set in the American justice system, Twelve Angry Men is highly relevant to Victorian students. In their final year of formal schooling, students are already or almost at the age where they will be required to fulfil certain civic responsibilities; soon they will be drinking and driving responsibly, voting in elections and also be eligible to be called up for jury duty. Some of our young adults may view jury duty as a privilege, but just like some of the men in the play, there will always be those who view this civic responsibility as a burden. They will feel those baseball tickets burning a hole in their pocket just like Juror 7; they would prefer to be elsewhere than locked in a jury room with eleven strangers.

The exploration of human nature in the play provides many avenues for close text study. These jurors are both individual and universal, coming together from a range of backgrounds, each bringing their own life experiences, beliefs and values with them. Some of the jurors, particularly as exemplified by Juror 8, bring humanity, compassion and reason to the jury room. They have listened carefully in the courtroom, perhaps made notes, observed the witnesses closely and genuinely want to bring the ‘right’ verdict back to the judge. It is the nature of humans that they do not always reach conclusions based on logic and reason. Some base their decisions on emotion, allowing themselves to be influenced by personal beliefs and also prejudices.

Australians were enthralled by the Lindy Chamberlain trial in 1982. There were those who believed in her innocence and others who found it impossible to accept her story that ‘a dingo took my baby’ from a tent at the Ayers Rock camping ground. Australians made judgements about her clothes, her religion, the unusual name given to the baby and drew attention to the fact that Lindy Chamberlain never broke down during the trial. These prejudices and preconceptions made a fair trial, to which she was entitled under Australian law, very difficult. The jurors at her trial returned a ‘guilty’ verdict and she was jailed. The compelling piece of evidence at the trial was forensic evidence of human blood found in the Chamberlain’s car. This evidence was later refuted as incorrect, but it had been vital in securing her conviction at the time. The Chamberlain case, just as in Twelve Angry Men, demonstrates that not everything heard or witnessed is reliable; ambiguities can exist and mistakes made. We need to ask whether all the information we receive is accurate and dependable. Links can be made to the media saturated world in which our students live.

Other cases heard by jury in Australia have also attracted attention when people beg to differ with the verdict after hearing about selective elements of a trial in the media. Two cases have, like the Chamberlain case, become the subject of books. Helen Garner’s, Joe Cinque’s Consolation, explores a murder trial in Canberra; whilst Karen Kissane has written an account of a Melbourne murder trial where the husband successfully argued that he had been provoked into killing his wife. An


16

astute reader knows that these accounts are written from the author’s perspective and no-one has the faintest idea of the deliberations that went on in the jury room or the angst faced by individual jurors in reaching their verdict.

The jurors in Twelve Angry Men show the importance of critical thinking skills, not just in the jury room, but life in general. As they consider each piece of evidence and dissect the witness testimonies, individual jurors start to question what they have seen and heard. Doubts arise. Could the father have been murdered by someone else? How was the stab wound inflicted by the knife? Was the defendant telling the truth when he said he was at the movies? Did the woman have her glasses on when she witnessed the murder? Did the old man hear and see everything he claimed? Was the psychiatrist’s evidence reliable? There are many questions asked as deliberations proceed. One of the most important is the question asked of Juror 8: what if the jury find the defendant innocent when he really was guilty? The premise of ‘reasonable doubt’ underpins the jury process but Twelve Angry Men highlights the different ways in which individual jurors can interpret the concept. Juror 8 places great emphasis on working his way to an understanding of what really happened. He is determined to know the truth even if it means spending a number of hours logically dissecting the evidence presented in the trial. Jurors 3 and 10 have immediately judged the defendant as guilty and are not interested in wasting time examining the knife or calculating the time the old man took to get his front door. It takes them until the final moments of the play to shed their preconceived ideas about the boy, depersonalise the case from their own experiences and understand that, even though he may well be guilty, there is room for doubt.

One of the great strengths of the play is how Reginald Rose lets us fill in the blanks. He is not specific about the ethnicity of the boy although the 1956 film version portrays the defendant as Puerto Rican. It could be that Juror 11 is Jewish but all that is revealed is his escape from persecution in Germany to America that he much admires for its democratic processes. The witnesses do not appear as characters: the audience must rely on the jurors to create their own portraits of the old man and the woman. The same applies to the defendant whose absence looms large as these twelve men decide his future.

The play also presents a microcosm of American society. We see this society at its best and worst as the twelve men help us to decide what qualities make a good juror. The issue of racism simmers beneath the surface; and issues of class, education and occupation all influence the jury. Emotions are heightened in the literal and metaphorical heat of the jury room. There is shouting, insults, arrogance, patronising, sulking, slamming of doors, sarcasm, apathy, anger and humiliation. There are also the admirable qualities that give us faith in human nature. We see respect, thoughtfulness, reasoned questioning, honesty and the ability of most of the jurors to reach the conclusion that they possess ‘reasonable doubt’.

Some students may argue that Juror 8 is too good to be true, that Juror 10 goes ‘over the top’ in his angry rant or that Juror 3’s personalisation of the case would not happen in real life. Remind them that Reginald Rose creates these extremes of characters to make us think about the importance of justice, fairness and reason. Ultimately, the verdict in Twelve Angry Men is the correct one, even if the defendant did in fact murder his father. It all comes down to the question of ‘reasonable doubt’.


17

CHARACTERS

Foreman The Foreman of the jury tries to run the consideration of the verdict in an orderly fashion. His efforts to keep his fellow jurors calm and focused are not always successful, particularly as the individual personalities of the jurors become more apparent. He takes offence at criticism of his role, angrily telling Juror 10 that he is welcome to take on the foreman role himself. After this incident, the Foreman, a high school football coach, withdraws from the discussion for a period of time, not really asserting his viewpoint again until page 58 when he brings up the role of the psychiatrist. He votes ‘not guilty’ several times, finally changing his vote on page 63, one of the last three jurors to do so: ‘Slowly, almost embarrassed, he raises his own hand’. The Foreman also speaks out to confirm the marks on the woman’s nose, reinforcing his belief of the existence of ‘reasonable doubt’.

Juror 2 Juror 2 is a nervous, meek figure. He has no interest in baseball, sucks on cough drops and his apprehensiveness of Juror 3 quickly becomes apparent. The stage directions describe him as looking around helplessly and hesitating before he speaks. When he wants the jurors to have their say in order, he is quickly shut down by Juror 3. The same happens when he comments that it is ‘interesting’ that the knives are the same. However, he gradually becomes more confident, telling Juror 3 to ‘take it easy’ (p.27) after the secret ballot and contributing to the discussion about the words ‘I’m going to kill you’ by recalling his own recent use of the phrase. Juror 2 changes his vote to ‘not guilty’ on page 50 and also has concerns about the angle of the stab wound. This is important as it prompts Juror 5 to contribute his personal knowledge of knives.

Juror 3 Juror 3, a loud heavyset man, becomes the main antagonist of Juror 8, a role highlighted during the re-enactment of the stabbing. A self-employed businessman running his own messenger service, the Beck and Call Company, Juror 3 soon establishes himself as an intolerant bully who is quick to insult and patronise the other jurors or browbeat them into agreeing with a ‘guilty’ verdict. He reveals far more personal details about himself than the rest of the jury; he refers to his wife, his 37 employees and, importantly, his twenty-year old son whom he hasn’t seen for two years after a fight between them. From the very beginning of deliberations, Juror 3 believes the case is obvious. He likes to talk facts, keeping detailed notes during the trial. However, his facts are also mixed with personal prejudice, preconceived notions and assumptions. He holds harsh views on kids, particularly those from the slums. The audience wonders if he has even listened to the arguments of the defence lawyer.

Juror 3’s outbursts create great tension in the jury room. His confession, perhaps accidental, about his relationship with his son, causes palpable embarrassment. His own personal inadequacies and blinkered beliefs become clearer as he angrily attacks the other jurors, particularly Juror 8: ‘You come in here with your sanctimonious talk about slum kids and injustice ... I’ve had enough ... He’s got to


18

burn’. (p.47) This outburst is culminated by his furious contradiction of his own arguments at the end of Act 1 after Juror 8 calls him a sadist: ‘I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!’ (p.48) Juror 3 is the last juror to hold out for a ‘guilty’ verdict. It is only after his angry rant at the end of the play, that he finally understands how he has mixed his personal anger and sense of betrayal about his own son with his reactions to the defendant.

Juror 4 A stock market broker who doesn’t appear to be affected by the oppressive heat in the jury room, Juror 4 is the one who suggests the preliminary vote. After initially going through the facts one at a time, it becomes clear he also holds preconceived ideas about the defendant’s background: ‘Slums are breeding grounds for criminals ... Children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society’. (p.18) He isn’t convinced that the father could have been stabbed by a similar knife, refusing to accept such an incredible coincidence. He raises questions about motive, believing that the boy had every reason to kill his father, as well as being strongly convinced by the woman’s testimony. A rationalist, he tells Jurors 3 and 10 during a break that they could make the other jurors change their minds back by using logic. However, Juror 4 is uncomfortably defeated by Juror 8’s logic when he fails to correctly remember the details of a film he had seen earlier in the week. He clings to his ‘guilty’ vote until the doubts raised about the woman’s testimony because she may not have been wearing glasses. The second last juror to change his vote, he now admits he has ‘reasonable doubt’. Ironically, it was Juror 4 rubbing his nose after removing his glasses that caused Juror 9 to raise these doubts.

Juror 5 Juror 5 at first seems hesitant, passing on his right to speak the first time around the table, not contributing to the discussion until page 16 when he feels obligated to defend those who live in slums. Juror 10’s preconceptions about kids raised in slums stirs him to anger and he reveals that he lives in a slum area, working as a nurse at a Harlem hospital. He is unsure about whether the boy has been truthful but responds angrily when Juror 3 accuses him of changing his vote in the secret ballot. It is the discussion about whether the old man could have heard the boy’s words due to the sound of the train that casts doubt on the case. He changes his vote to ‘not guilty’ on page 37, the second juror to do so. Juror 5 contributes significantly to the proceedings with his demonstration of the correct way to use the knife. He highlights that an experienced knife fighter would use a switchblade underhand, stabbing upward rather than downward. He knows this as he has personally witnessed knife fights. Juror 5 also stands up for people’s rights. When Juror 7 insults Juror 11, he tells him: ‘You mean you’re calling him arrogant because he wasn’t born here? Well, I’m calling you arrogant because you were’. (p.55)

Juror 6 Juror 6 is a housepainter more used to working with his hands than his brain. He listens more than he talks in the jury room. He initially finds the testimony of the witnesses powerful and it isn’t until the discussion about whether the murder could have been heard over the noisy el train that he starts to wonder, remembering how noisy he had found the trains when he worked on a house next to an el track. He finds Juror 3 hard to take, telling Juror 8 how embarrassing the revelation about the


19

son was. He also doesn’t like the way Juror 3 speaks to Juror 9: ‘A guy who talks like that to an old man oughta really get stepped on y’know’. (p.35) Juror 6, once he realises he has ‘reasonable doubt’ about the old man’s testimony, asks for another vote. He changes to ‘not guilty’ on page 51, clearly explaining why he does so. Juror 6 is also significant as his words to Juror 8 on page 30 highlight the core of jury responsibility: ‘Suppose you talk us all outa this and the kid really did knife his father?’

Juror 7 A salesman, Juror 7 is more interested in discussing the weather than the case. He is cynical about the whole process — he cracks jokes and is more interested in making it to the evening baseball game. He becomes frustrated at Juror 8’s need to work through the evidence, agreeing with Juror 3 that the defendant’s guilt is absolute based on the boy’s previous record and the facts of the case. The evidence of the switch knife doesn’t sway him and as other jurors change their votes, Juror 7 becomes increasingly angry and frustrated. He shows prejudice towards Juror 11, telling him he’ll ‘knock his goddamn Middle European head off’. (p.56) He generalises that migrants are all alike. He lobbies for a ‘hung jury’ but eventually changes his vote to ‘not guilty’ for scurrilous reasons. Rather than changing his vote because of ‘reasonable doubt’, Juror 7 has simply had enough and wants to get to his baseball match. His actions cast aspersions on the jury process and can be juxtaposed with the diligence of Juror 8 who is determined to take his role as a juror as seriously as possible.

Juror 8 Juror 8 is an admirable, just man whose prime concern is that justice is achieved. He wants to know the truth and presents all the facts to the jurors. The only juror to initially vote ‘not guilty’, his reasoning is not that the defendant is innocent but that the boy can’t be sent off to die without the jury discussing the case first. He recognises the terrible life of the defendant and suspects that his lawyer didn’t help his cause. Juror 8’s belief in humanity, reason and justice become increasingly apparent as he brings up various aspects of the trial for discussion. Reminding the others of their responsibilities and that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, he raises questions about the knife, the witness testimonies and the motive. The prejudices and preconceptions of some other jurors upset him. Whilst he wants to ask questions because of his ‘gut’ instinct about the trial, he has to work hard to persuade a diverse range of men that their strongly held views aren’t necessarily the right ones.

Juror 8 remains calm through most of the deliberations, only becoming upset at the game of tic-tac-toe between Jurors 10 and 12, and later at Juror 3 whom he calls a ‘sadist’. This is significant as the remark provokes Juror 3’s angry outburst at the end of Act 1 where he proves Juror 8’s point that not all phrases such as ‘I’ll kill you’ can be taken literally. Juror 8 speaks more than any other man on the stage, becoming the driving force behind the ultimate ‘not guilty’ verdict and plays the role of the protagonist in the play. There are many excellent quotes from Juror 8 that highlight the key issues of the play and his embodiment of insightful, analytical reason based on a commitment to justice. He is ultimately the ‘leader’ of the jury.


20

Juror 9 This juror is an elderly gentleman who at first seems to think he doesn’t have much to offer to the deliberations. However, he proves to be an observant, thoughtful and tolerant man who respects Juror 8 for standing alone in his quest for the truth. He is slow to raise his hand at the first vote even though he initially believes the boy guilty. Juror 9 is quick to put Juror 10 in his place: ‘It suddenly occurs to me that you must be an ignorant man’. (p.13) He starts to doubt his ‘guilty’ vote after the discussion about the knife and responds to the desire of some jurors to end deliberations hastily by reminding them that ‘It’s only one night. A boy may die’. (p.25) He admits that he has changed his vote in the secret ballot, becoming the second juror to vote ‘not guilty’. He supports Juror 8 in his desire for more discussion, even though he feels the boy is probably guilty. Juror 9’s observational skills become important as he has noticed much about the old man in court. He forms a theory that the old man may have simply wanted attention and ended up believing his own story. He is also the juror who notices the marks left by glasses on the woman’s face; this throws her testimony into doubt and is ultimately a key factor in the final verdict. No wonder he is proud of his 20-20 vision.

Juror 10 Juror 10 is the embodiment of bigotry and prejudice. An angry and bitter man, he believes the defendant is guilty as all kids from slums are ‘trash’ and that the witness accounts are irrefutable. He is hostile towards the patient reasoning of Juror 8 and doesn’t want to listen to Juror 9’s reasons for changing his vote. After supporting Juror 7’s desire for a ‘hung jury’, a proposal rejected by the others, he continues to pour scorn on the questions raised. He does, however, contradict his own assumption that all psychiatrists are crazy when he later tries to argue that the boy must be capable of killing if the psychiatrist said so. As his prejudices against certain sections of society become more pronounced, particularly offending Jurors 5 and 11, he steadily loses credibility as a juror. His long tirade railing against minorities is full of assumptions, generalisations and prejudices which cause Jurors 8, 11, 5, 4, 9, 12, 6 and 2 to move away or attempt to stop him speaking. After Juror 4 tells him not to say another word, he soon after changes his vote to ‘not guilty’, not particularly caring what happens anymore.

Juror 11 Juror 11 is a European immigrant, possibly Jewish, who has come to America to escape persecution (although this isn’t explicitly stated in the play). He is a watchmaker, speaks formal English with a German accent and is proud to be on a jury which to him symbolises all that he admires about American democracy. Keen for the others to take their duties seriously, he approaches the discussions rationally and sensibly. Juror 11 raises questions about the psychiatrist’s evidence, listens carefully to debate about the knife and wonders why the boy came back to the apartment after the murder. He changes his vote to ‘not guilty’ on page 41 and responds to criticism by saying ‘I don’t have to defend my decision to you. I have a reasonable doubt in my mind’. (p.41) This juror also plays an important role in reminding the others of their responsibilities; he reminds them that they have nothing to gain or lose by the verdict and that personal feelings must be kept out of the jury room. Juror 11 also supports Juror 8’s claim that not everyone who says ‘I’ll kill you’


21

means it: ‘To say that a man is capable of murder does not mean that he has committed murder’. (p.59) His reasoned view is that people impose controls upon themselves to prevent the desire to kill from surfacing.

Juror 12 Juror 12 is an advertising agent who writes jingles and likes doodling on paper as he thinks. He appears an intelligent man but has no real understanding of people. Impressed by the prosecuting attorney’s logic and glad that they were allocated a murder trial, he believes in the defendant’s guilt. His assumption is that witnesses have taken an oath therefore the testimony they provide must be the truth. The discussion about how the victim was stabbed unsettles him though and he changes his vote to ‘not guilty’. Soon after, the vote is changed back to ‘guilty’ as he insists the woman’s evidence must be true. It takes the doubt created about her eyesight for him to change his mind again, but when questioned he finds it difficult to explain his decision. Juror 12 does not seem to be a man of firm opinion, feeling more comfortable in the creative world of his job.

Defendant All information about the sixteen-year old boy on trial for the murder of his father is heard second-hand through the jurors. He lives in a slum, his mother died when he was nine and the jailing of his father forced him to spend time in an orphanage. He has been beaten regularly by his father from a young age and this is seen as a motive for the murder. At ten, the defendant appeared in the children’s court for throwing a rock at a teacher, by fourteen was in reform school and had stolen a car, and he had been arrested for mugging and assault with a knife. The boy admits he left home at 8pm after being hit by his father during an argument, meeting his friends and showing them the knife. His testimony after this varies from witnesses and the prosecution case as he claims he’d gone to the movies at 11:30pm and then returned home about 3:15am to find his father dead. A clue that he may not be from an English background is the comment that he doesn’t speak good English. So never seen and only heard through second-hand accounts, often in a prejudiced way, the audience doesn’t get to know the defendant and can never know if he is in fact guilty or not.

Victim The boy’s father appears to have been an angry, frustrated man who couldn’t hold down a job, has spent time in jail and is a compulsive gambler. He and his son argue regularly, leading to physical beatings of the boy by the physically larger father. There is no-one to speak on his behalf and the closest we get is through Juror 3’s empathy as a disappointed father himself.

Old Man Witness The old man lives in a slum area in the apartment below the boy and his father. His clothes are torn, he has suffered a stroke and consequently walks dragging one leg. His testimony, which is believed by most of the jurors, is later shown to be possibly not entirely without flaws. As well as the theory that he has craved the attention the case has brought him, there is also doubt about whether he could have heard


22

everything with the train passing by and also his ability to physically make it to the door in time to see the boy running away. This doubt triggers the re-enactment on stage of the old man’s journey from his bed to the doorway.

Woman Witness The woman lives across the el tracks but opposite the apartment where the murder took place. Again her testimony has seemed credible in court as she recalled seeing the actual stabbing through her bedroom window and also through the windows of a passing el train. Three aspects of her testimony end up being queried: firstly, whether she could have heard the scream through the noisy train; secondly, whether the effect of the passing train blurred what she saw; and thirdly, the issue of her glasses. Juror 9 theorises that for vanity reasons, the woman didn’t wear her glasses to court. This leads to doubt as to whether she was wearing her glasses in bed and would have really seen the murder take place.

Defence Lawyer Whereas the prosecuting attorney is painted in a positive light as an energetic and persuasive lawyer, the young man representing the defendant has not left a good impression on several of the jurors. Juror 8 says if he had been the boy, he would have asked for another lawyer and goes as far as questioning the defence lawyer’s commitment to the case. He was possibly court-appointed, poorly prepared and certainly didn’t pursue the type of cross-examination taking place in the jury room. His failings symbolise the way the legal system can discriminate against those from under-privileged backgrounds.


23

ISSUES AND THEMES

Justice and the Judicial System Twelve Angry Men highlights not only the strengths of the American justice system, but also its fragility. All of the jurors have taken an oath to listen carefully to the evidence presented in court and to deliver the defendant a fair and considered verdict that has been reached unanimously. This means all twelve jurors agreeing whether or not ‘reasonable doubt’ exists. If it does not exist, the defendant is guilty — and faces the death penalty. If the jury finds there is reasonable doubt, the defendant is to be deemed innocent. On the surface, this seems an easy task. However, the jury system also brings together twelve men from different walks of life who are suddenly expected to spend several days listening to the trial and are then placed in a room together to consider their verdict. This is where the notion of justice is essential; all members of the jury need to be united in their desire for a fair result. Some of the jurors in the play have to learn that no one needs to prove the defendant innocent; the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove he is guilty. The playwright, however, also highlights some ironies of the justice system. There are certain personalities who shape the course of deliberations and queries are raised about the ‘twisting of the facts’. Plenty of persuasion and manipulation goes on as the jurors try to guess the truth of witness testimonies. As Juror 5 reminds them, witnesses can make mistakes. The audience sees how certain individuals have the potential to undermine the search for justice, whilst others do all they can to ensure justice is achieved.

• Juror 8 is the epitome of a fair and conscientious juror who is prepared to stand alone in order to see a just verdict delivered.

• Juror 8 also is able to acknowledge that the real truth may never be known, but he would rather, if there was any doubt, see a guilty man live rather than an innocent man die.

• Juror 8’s calm, reasoned delivery of facts and his ability to refute some of the evidence means that other jurors start to realise that a fair verdict means letting go of their preconceived notions and prejudices about the defendant and his background. As he says: ‘No one can really know. But we have a reasonable doubt, and this is a safeguard that has enormous value in our system’. (p.66)

• Jurors 9 and 11 are crucial in supporting Juror 8’s quest for justice.

• Juror 4 eventually realises that justice must prevail when he starts to have doubts about some of the witness testimony: ‘I now have a reasonable doubt’. (p.71)

• Juror 3 finds it impossible to administer justice fairly as he is so bound up in his personal angst about his relationship with his son: ‘You come in here with your sanctimonious talk about slum kids and injustice…’. (p.47)

• Juror 2, who changes his vote quite late in the play, tells Juror 3: ‘You can’t send someone off to die on evidence like that’. (p.71)


24

• Although Jurors 7 and 10 have questionable motives about voting ‘not guilty’, in the end their decisions allow justice to triumph and the original intentions of the writers of the Sixth Amendment to the American Constitution are met.

Prejudice and Stereotyping One would hope that all people consider other human beings as equal to themselves and don’t make assumptions based on race or socio-economic background. We would also hope that jurors would give every person the same careful consideration, no matter where they come from. Rose goes out of his way to highlight that some men are unable to put aside their personal beliefs, even when they have sworn an oath to do so. Prejudice in the play is personified by Jurors 3 and 10. Juror 3’s prejudice stems from his troubled relationship with his own son. He views the defendant through his blinkered misconceptions about young men. Juror 10 represents those who are prejudiced against people from differing ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds. This prejudice reaches its peak during his hyperbolic tirade against ‘these people’. To him, this trial is a chance to get rid of one of ‘them’ by finding the defendant ‘guilty’, even at the expense of a fair trial. Rose has deliberately provided several jurors who test the preconceived notions of the other jurors: Juror 5 is from the slums, Juror 9 is elderly and Juror 11 is a European migrant who has sought refuge from persecution in America. Students should also remember that one of the ironies of the play is that the jury consists of twelve white men.

• Juror 10 is prejudiced against anyone from the slums: ‘You can’t believe a word they say. I mean they’re born liars’. (p.13) ‘They are different. They think different. They act different’. (p.64) ‘He’s a common, ignorant slob. He don’t even speak good English’. (p.37) He is unable to make a fair judgement about individual guilt.

• Juror 4 also stereotypes those who live in poor socio-economic areas: ‘Slums are a breeding ground for criminals’. (p.18)

• Juror 11 responds with ‘This sensitivity I understand’ when Juror 10 offends Juror 5 with his denigration of those who live in slums. Juror 11 has had to face prejudice himself. (p.18)

• Juror 7 later offends these sensitivities when he speaks angrily of Juror 11: ‘I’m tellin’ ya they’re all alike’. (p.55)

• Juror 8 knows that prejudice endangers the process of a fair trial: ‘It’s very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth’. (p.66)

• Juror 9 is also able to view the defendant fairly: ‘I don’t think the kind of boy he is has anything to do with it’. (p.51)

• Ageism is seen in respect to the old man who testifies. Juror 3 says: ‘He’s an old man … Half the time he was confused. How could he be positive about anything?’ (p.43) Rose gives Juror 9 an excellent memory, eyesight and observational skills to show that age isn’t always an issue.

• Juror 3 stereotypes young men: ‘The man’s a dangerous killer. You could see it’. (p.11) ‘That goddamn rotten kid. I know him. What they’re like’. (p.72)


25

Conflict Twelve Angry Men is a drama that revolves around several types of conflict. Even allowing for the fact that the twelve men are crowded in an oppressively hot room, human nature dictates that this many people are not going to reach consensus easily. We see juror versus juror conflict, person against society conflict and also internal conflict. The differences between Jurors 3 and 8 develop throughout the jury’s deliberations and reach a climax when Juror 3 threatens to kill Juror 8 at the end of Act 1. Resolution isn’t reached until the very end when, after Juror 3 has voted ‘not guilty’, Juror 8 helps him with his coat. The defendant has battled against society all his life: he is from an economically and emotionally impoverished background and has experienced institutions such as orphanages and reform school already. Perhaps his, in all likelihood, court-appointed lawyer also exemplifies conflict; he may not be interested in making much effort on behalf of his client. Conflict of a different type is also seen in Juror 3 — part of his problem lies with his internalisation of the conflict between himself and his son. It takes him until the end of play to realise how he has been behaving.

• Juror 3 is angry at Juror 8: ‘Who do you think you are to start cross-examining us? (p.27). ‘Shut up you son of a bitch!’ (p.47) Also Juror 3’s deliberately threatening re-enactment of the stabbing with Juror 8 makes all in the room take a deep breath.

• Juror 4 tells Juror 10: ‘We’ve heard enough. Sit down. And don’t open your filthy mouth again’. (p.66) This is after Juror 10 called him a ‘smart little bastard’.

• Juror 5 is provoked to anger by Juror 10: ‘There is something personal’. (p.18)

• Juror 6 doesn’t like the way Juror 3 talks to Juror 9: ‘A guy who talks like that to an old man oughta really get stepped on y’know’. (p.35)

• Juror 8 calls Juror 3 a ‘sadist’ just before Juror 3 threatens to kill him.

• Juror 9 finds Juror 10 difficult: ‘Do you know you’re a sick man?’ (p.65)

• Juror 10 doesn’t want to try and resolve the disagreements within the jury: ‘Those six bastards in there aren’t going to change their minds’. (p.54)

• The stage directions are also very important when exploring this theme. Clues are given as to looks, actions, stance and demeanour.

Reason and Logic versus Emotion Twelve Angry Men shows us that not all people are able to put their personal beliefs and feelings aside to concentrate on the facts and evidence that they hear in a court room. This clash between reason and emotion also shifts into the jury room when the twelve men have the opportunity to say what they think about the case. Whilst Jurors 8, 9 and 11 are able to logically sift through the various exhibits and testimonies, other jurors can only personalise the case rather than setting aside their feelings. Jurors 3 and 10 are examples of this. These two jurors are also unable to contain their tempers as well as the others; both at various stages threaten others.

• Juror 3 immediately bases his assessment of the defendant on his personal views: ‘The man’s a dangerous killer. You could see it’. (p.11)


26

• Juror 6 also immediately reaches a conclusion: ‘I mean, I was convinced from the first day’. (p.11)

• Juror 3 also uses emotional manipulation to try and persuade the other jurors, although it doesn’t work: ‘You’re not going to intimidate me. I’m entitled to my opinion. I can sit in this goddamn room for a year’. (p.72)

• Juror 4 wants to use logic for self gain: ‘There’s no reason why they can’t be persuaded to do it again … Just by using logic’. (p.54)

• Juror 7 isn’t interested in logically working through the evidence: ‘Ran, walked. What’s the difference?’ (p.42)

• Juror 8 epitomises the value of reason and logic: ‘I think we owe him a few words.’ (p.13): ‘I don’t know. It doesn’t sound right to me’. (p.33): ‘Sometimes the facts that are staring you in the face are wrong’. (p.38): ‘We may be wrong’. (p.66)

• Juror 8 also suggests the re-enactment of the old man’s testimony and makes calculations about the el train.

• Juror 10 allows emotion to cloud most of what he says: ‘They breed like animals’. (p.64)

• Juror 11 is also rational and sensible: ‘I don’t believe I have to be loyal to one side or the other. I am simply asking questions’. (p.39): ‘To say that a man is capable of murder does not mean that he has committed murder’. (p.59)

Other themes and issues that could be explored include: • Truth

• Integrity

• Standing up for what you believe in

• Dynamics of group behaviour

• Anger

• Democracy and social responsibility

• Juvenile delinquency and its causes


27

LANGUAGE AND STYLE Style refers to the use of any distinctive language features in a text. This can include words, phrases, sentences, metaphors, similes, symbols, allusions and other stylistic features common to a play which is written to be performed on stage. Reginald Rose’s choices of language and style in Twelve Angry Men need to be closely examined by students in order to understand how meaning is conveyed in the text. The play uses the language of America in the 1950s. As the jurors reflect twelve men from different walks of life, their speech varies between formal and informal with various nuances quickly identifying each juror for the audience. Some words indicate heated discussion and threats are also incorporated. The use of stage directions lets us know when silences occur or when the weather changes outside the jury room window. And, of course, as the title suggests, these are twelve angry men. The playwright must develop language strategies to convey this emotion to the audience. The setting in the play is also part of the visual language of the text.

Speech of the Jurors • The language used in the jury room is mainly informal and conversational.

• Juror 11, the migrant from Germany, speaks very formal English. His syntax is sometimes out of order: ‘I beg pardon’ rather than the correct word arrangement of ‘I beg your pardon’.

• Juror 11 also uses contractions far less than many of the other jurors.

• Juror 10, who ironically accuses the defendant of using poor English, uses grammatically incorrect sentence structures. He also has one of the longest speeches in the play which is embellished with repetition, hyperbole and rhetoric.

• Juror 8 speaks formally. The only time his control of language lapses is when he becomes angry at Jurors 3 and 10.

• Juror 5 who lives in the slums speaks in short sentences and phrases. His speech is colloquial, as is that of Juror 7.

Setting • The stage is transformed into a small jury room. This limited setting

exacerbates feelings of claustrophobia and oppressiveness, and it contributes to the short tempers and frustrations of the jurors.

• It is hot and humid. There is no air-conditioning, a window is jammed and the fan initially does not work.

• There is a sub-setting — the apartment where the murder occurred. It is frequently referred to and the diagram is brought on stage.

Point of View • There is no overall perspective but each juror has their own point of view. They

have to consider other points of view in order to alter their votes.


28

Tension Tension is created through the use of foreshadowing, conflict, doubt and danger. The dramatic climaxes at the ends of Acts 1 and 2 see a peak in tension. Juror 3 threatens to kill Juror 8 and Juror 10 presents his dramatic recital of his prejudices against those who come from similar backgrounds to the defendant. The tension does not ease until the very end when Juror 8 stays to assist Juror 3 from the jury room.

Stage Directions The stage directions contribute to the tensions and underscore the issues in the play.

• Juror 8’s re-enactment of the old man’s movements in his apartment.

• Juror 3 demonstrating the use of the switch knife on Juror 8.

• The end of the play when Juror 3 has changed his vote to ‘not guilty’.

• Indications of facial expressions, boredom, interest.

• Indications of the jurors’ actions: going to the washroom, doodling, playing tic-tac-toe, looking out the window.

Anonymity of the Jurors • The jurors are never named. Names would have the effect of personalising the

men whereas the use of numbers is a way of maintaining the jurors as symbols of types of behaviour and perspectives. For example: we see Juror 8 as representative of reason and truth, whereas Juror 10 represents prejudice.

• Numbers also suggest that jurors are ‘faceless’ people whose task is simply to decide guilt or innocence.

• Numbers also remind us that the jurors do not go beyond their roles. When they leave the jury room, it is improbable that they will meet again.

Similes Similes are incorporated to give insights into the jurors’ perspectives and attitudes on the case and the processes of deliberating on a verdict.

• ‘... bouncing backwards and forward like a tennis ball’ to describe Juror 12’s change of vote.

• ‘... is like talking into a dead phone’ to describe Juror 3’s refusal to listen.

Irony • Dramatic irony is employed when incorrect grammar is used by Juror 10: ‘He

don’t even speak good English’. It is ironic as Juror 10 has mixed up his syntax too.

• Verbal irony occurs when Juror 3 calls the defendant ‘a fine, upright boy’ when he means the opposite. Juror 6 tells Juror 8 the other men are ‘a nice bunch of guys’ when he means he does not like them.


29

Sarcasm • Jurors 3, 7 and 10 make particular use of sarcasm: ‘golden-voiced preacher’,

‘Love your Underprivileged Brother Week’, ‘You’re quite a ball fan, aren’t you?', ‘hairsplitter’s convention’, ‘Boy-oh-boy! There’s always one.’

Rhetorical Questions • ‘Know what I mean?’; ‘If they said the kid is capable of killing, he could’ve killed,

couldn’t he?’

• Juror 10’s diatribe contains a stream of rhetorical questions.

Hyperbole • ‘Kids are born liars’; ‘You can’t do a damn thing with them’.

• Juror 10 uses hyperbole when he rails against ‘those people’.

Symbolism • The weather which shifts from hot and humid to a stormy downpour of rain and

the cessation of the rain as the play moves to its conclusion parallels the emotions and tensions of the jury room.

• The knife — both the exhibit and the knife bought by Juror 8.

• The window.

• Spectacles.

• Elevated train.

• Jury room as a symbol of confinement.

• The concept of ‘reasonable doubt’.

• Slums and the cityscape of New York out the jury room window.

Other Language and Style Features to Consider: • The use of legal terminology and the various votes.

• Allusions to baseball by Juror 7.


30

CLOSE STUDY

Passage One Pages 44-46, the re-enactment of the old man’s movements in his apartment.

In this passage, Juror 8 presents a re-enactment that casts doubt on the validity of the old man’s testimony in court. The old man claimed that he saw the defendant running down the stairs of the apartment block but questions have been raised about the time it would have taken him to move from his bedroom to the front door. In court, the old man said it took him fifteen seconds to get to the door but Juror 8 feels that this is questionable given his age and impaired mobility. Each of the jurors respond differently as Juror 8 goes about his demonstration. Some are sceptical but gradually become involved as they assist with the movement of chairs and keeping time. Others ridicule Juror 8, including Juror 3 who claims the whole thing is a game of ‘charades’. The whole episode is vital in assisting the progression of the jury’s deliberations. The next vote sees a 6 to 6 result.

• Why has Juror 8 requested to see the diagram of the old man’s apartment?

• How does this passage advance Juror 8’s role in the play?

• Which jurors have voted ‘not guilty’ up to this point in the play?

• In what way does this re-enactment engage the attention of the audience? Would the response be different if all the jurors had simply remained sitting at the table?

• What does this passage tell us about the importance of reason and logic?

• Which jurors assist Juror 8?

• How do jurors 3, 7 and 10 react during the demonstration?

• Consider the significance of Juror 3’s words: ‘Why didn’t the kid’s lawyer bring it up, if it’s so important?’ (p.45)

• To what extent does the Foreman involve himself in this passage?

• Why are the stage directions of paramount importance here?

• Discuss Juror 3’s response to the re-enactment. His response precipitates the end of Act 1.

• How is sarcasm employed in the passage?

Passage Two Pages 63-65, Juror 10’s tirade.

The outburst by Juror 10 as the play moves towards its conclusion highlights the power of language and the overwhelming hatred and prejudice felt by this man. He appears to genuinely believe that he is speaking on behalf of all society when he asserts that ‘these people’ lie and cheat and kill each other. Juror 10 has forgotten that the defendant is an individual, dehumanising him by grouping him with all those


31

who live in slums and belong to minority groups. He argues that the defendant must be convicted because he is a member of this minority. His eruption of angry generalisations, hyperbole and abuse astonishes not only the audience but most of the jury as well. Their response is powerful and also moving. Most of them, one by one, silently move away from the table and turn their backs to him. This movement away from the table is symbolic as these jurors are indicating that they are not part of the ‘you’ who only see the defendant as ‘they’. Juror 10 gradually realises the meaning of the words he has uttered, understanding his outburst is racist and unfair. It is not long after that he changes his vote to ‘not guilty’.

• Why does Juror 10 repeatedly use the words ‘they’ and ‘you’?

• List the various assertions he makes about minority groups. Each begins with ‘they’.

• What has triggered this outburst?

• What accusations does he make against Juror 8?

• How does Juror 10 show the importance of facts?

• Explain Juror 5’s actions during this passage.

• What is the significance of this quote: ‘Oh sure, there are some good things about ‘em. Look, I’m the first one to say that. I’ve known some who were OK, but that’s the exception’? (p.64)

• How does Juror 10 react to Juror 9 calling him a ‘sick man’?

• What role do the stage directions play in this passage?

Passage Three Pages 72-73, Juror 3’s breakdown at the end of the play.

When Juror 3 realises that he has lost his two closest allies, Jurors 4 and 10, he lashes out at Juror 10: ‘You’re the worst son of a … I think he’s guilty’. (p.71) He feels betrayed, arguing that they have not considered all the other evidence. When Juror 2 reminds him that he said they could throw out all the other evidence except the woman’s testimony, Juror 3 finds himself backed into a corner with no support: ‘I don’t care whether I’m alone or not. It’s my right’. (p.71) Juror 8 asks him to provide his arguments as to why he still believes the defendant to be guilty but Juror 3, unable to articulate any logical points, loses his temper. He accuses the others of intimidation and twisting everything around as they silently watch him. When Juror 3 brings up the ‘I’m gonna kill you’ phrase, he loses his focus on the reality of the case and transfers his anger and sense of betrayal to the defendant. He has empathised with the father: ‘It was his father. That goddamn rotten kid. I know him … I can feel that knife goin’ in’. (p.74) It is as if he has felt the knife entering his own heart. After a long pause, Juror 3 changes his vote to ‘not guilty’.

• What is Juror 3’s reaction when Jurors 4 and 10 change their votes?

• How has he contradicted himself in this passage?

• Discuss the tactics Juror 3 uses to try to sway the others back to his point of view. Why is he doomed to fail?


32

• What is meant by him when he calls the other jurors ‘a lousy bunch of bleeding hearts’?

• Why is the long pause so effective?

• In what ways is the knife symbolic to Juror 3?

• Do you feel any sympathy for Juror 3 at the end of the play?

• In what ways has Juror 3 been the antithesis of Juror 8?


33

FURTHER ACTIVITIES

Individual Activities • Find out about the references to other people or events in the play: for example,

Clarence Darrow.

• Imagine you are a newspaper journalist. Write an article covering the trial and the announcement of the verdict.

• Research how the jury system has changed in America since 1957.

• Trace the attempts to change Juror 8’s mind and his responses to these attempts.

• Devise names for each of the jurors which reflect their behaviours and attitudes. Explain your choices.

• Write an interview with Reginald Rose. Your interview must have a focus — his purposes in writing the play, his use of theatrical devices, his life, etc.

• Imagine you are the boy. Write a monologue of your thoughts as the jury is deliberating on its verdict.

• Did you find yourself prejudiced against any of the jurors? Why?

• Which juror do you most admire? Explain.

• Did your feelings towards Juror 3 change at all during the play? When and why?

• Create a flow chart that highlights each of the conflicts within the jury room.

• What questions would you put to a potential juror to determine if he or she should serve on this particular jury?

• Make a glossary of terms (legal, colloquial) used in the play. There are many Americanisms.

• Use overlapping circles to compare and contrast Jurors 3, 8 and 10.

• Construct a character chart. For each character, record/describe an incident or moment in the play where they experience a particular emotion; for example, frustration, anger, anxiety, intimidation, humiliation, relief, withdrawal, kindness

• Develop a ‘fishbone’ diagram to portray the various causes of the final verdict of ’not guilty’.

Group Activities • Role-play a television interview with the defendant after the trial. Other groups

could do the same with various jurors.

• Students draw a pictorial representation of the jury room. They could add symbols to represent certain aspects of the room (such as pictures of a fan, Woolworths building, knife).


34

• Analyse the effectiveness of sarcasm, hyperbole and rhetorical questions in the jury room. Discuss examples with the whole class.

• Discuss in groups the differences between each juror’s ‘active’ role in the jury room. Who is decisive? Who tries to persuade others? Who is quieter? Who doesn’t say much for a while? Who follows the views of others? Who thinks for themselves? Who studies the facts? Who changes?

• In what ways do Jurors 8, 9 and 11 embody the ideal of active citizenship in a democracy? What kinds of threats to the success of democracy through active citizen participation are posed by Jurors 3, 7, 10, and 12? Team up with two other classmates and make a class presentation in which you discuss these issues.

Class Activities • On a piece of paper, write a question you would like to ask the defendant about

his relationship with his father or the night of the murder. Exchange with someone else in the class and give them the answer from the play.

• All members of the class are to write a ‘character study’ of the defendant. Share these around the class and see if students have portrayed the defendant in different ways. Discuss the reasons for this outcome.

• Discuss the emerging roles of the individual jurors.

• Discuss the effectiveness of the Foreman of the jury.

• Discuss whether there is a real hero in the play. Is it Juror 8, 9 or 11? None of them?

• Discuss the various votes and analyse the circumstances that change each vote.

• Using tape, make a stage grid in the classroom or somewhere else that is practical. Mark where everything is located. Alternatively, set up the classroom as best you can to replicate the set. Talk about the stage directions and their importance.

• Organise a class debate on the death penalty. Students should try seeing it through perspective of 1950s America as well.

• Invite a guest who has been on a jury or has some knowledge of procedure to talk to the class. The Legal Studies teacher might be able to help.

• Discuss the lack of women in the play. Do you think the presence of women would have altered anything about the play?

• Discuss the reasons why you think the ‘hold out’ jurors crumble at the end. Is it social/peer pressure or do they now genuinely hold a ‘reasonable doubt’? Does this make you question the jury system?

• Discuss which incidents are the turning points in the play.

• Everyone in the class takes on a role: 12 jurors, witnesses, guard, defendant, father. Each student needs to explain their role in the play.


35

• Divide the class into 3 groups: person vs person conflict, person vs society conflict, person vs self conflict. Each group needs to report on how their type of conflict fits into the play. Also talk about how each conflict is resolved.


36

KEY QUOTES

‘Suppose you talk us all outa this and the kid really did knife his father?’ (p.30) Juror 6 raises this question with Juror 8 in the washroom whilst they await the arrival of the knife. Juror’s 8 expression, as shown through the stage directions, highlights that he is deeply troubled by this problem. He is aware that he will never know the answer.

‘Let go of me, God damn it. I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!’ (p.48) Juror 3 is provoked to rage by Juror 8 who tells him he wants to see the boy die, not because of the fact, but because he personally wants it. Act 1 finishes at this point as Juror 3 contradicts his earlier claim that no-one means it when they say ‘I’ll kill you’.

‘This is not why we are here, to fight. We have a responsibility. This, I have always thought, is a remarkable thing about democracy.’ (p.50) Juror 11 says this at the start of Act 2, just before the next vote is taken. He is proud of being a juror and reminds the others that they should be taking the role seriously, rather than fighting.

‘All this yakkin’s getting us nowhere so I’m going to break it up here. I’m changing my vote to “not guilty”.’ (p.62) Juror 7 decides to change his vote as he realises that the majority of jurors are now voting ‘not guilty’. This change of mind is significant as it is not based on the notion of ‘reasonable doubt’ but on his desire to conclude the case. His action disgusts Juror 11.

‘Look, let’s talk facts. These people are born to lie. Now, it’s the way they are and no intelligent man is gonna tell me otherwise. They don’t know what truth is … They are different. They think different. They act different.’ (p.64) This is part of Juror 10’s tirade against minority groups when he is angered by the jury vote of 9 to 3 in favour of ‘not guilty’. He is blinded by his prejudices and unable to understand the concept of ‘reasonable doubt’ that has now caused some jurors to changes their minds. Most of the other jurors are appalled by his outburst.

‘You can’t send someone off to die on evidence like that.’ (p.71) Juror 2 has said little during the deliberations but is reacting now to Juror 3’s dismissal of the doubt cast upon the woman’s testimony. Juror 2 has undergone a process of transformation; initially convinced of the defendant’s guilt, he has listened carefully to the dissection of the evidence and realised the importance of reason and logic over emotion. His experiences in the jury room have made him a more thoughtful, compassionate person.

‘It was his father. That goddamn rotten kid. I know him. What they’re like. What they do to you. How they kill you every day. My God, don’t you see? How come I’m the only one who sees? Jeez, I can feel that knife goin’ in.’ (p.72) This is the climax of the play. Juror 3 is the only one left voting ‘not guilty’ and has not been able to overcome his personalisation of the case. The defendant, in his eyes, personifies his son and the acrimonious relationship between them. Finally,


37

after this outburst, Juror 3 understands how he has allowed himself to be ruled by his heart rather than his head and changes his vote to ‘not guilty’. This allows the jury to deliver its verdict to the court. Juror 8 who has taken on the role of his ‘arch nemesis’ quietly stays and helps him put on his coat. We are left with the impression that what happens in the jury room will stay in the jury room.


38

TEXT RESPONSE TOPICS • How does Twelve Angry Men show that prejudice can obscure the truth?

• ‘Justice and fairness can prevail over intolerance and prejudice if one fair and just person is willing to speak out.’ Do you agree?

• What does the play show us about group behaviour?

• ‘Twelve Angry Men explores the role of individual influence in group settings.’ Discuss.

• ‘Reginald Rose vindicates rather than destroys our belief in the jury system as a means of securing justice.’ Do you agree?

• ‘The defendant in Twelve Angry Men is the dominant character in the play even though he plays no active part.’ Do you agree?

• Does it matter that the audience remains ignorant of the defendant’s guilt or innocence at the end of the play?

• ‘We have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict. This is one of the reasons why we are strong. We should not make it a personal thing’. Discuss.

• How does the playwright use the jurors to show the conflict between right and wrong?

• ‘I mean, did you ever hear so much talk about nothing?’ Twelve Angry Men shows the importance of talking and listening in the jury room. Discuss.

• Juror 11 says: ‘Facts may be coloured by the personalities of the people who present them’. Is he right?

• ‘You can’t send someone off to die on evidence like that’. How important is evidence in Twelve Angry Men?

• ‘The setting of the play enhances the tension among the men.’ Do you agree?

• How does Twelve Angry Men explore the democratic process?

• ‘Twelve Angry Men shows the importance of asking questions.’ Discuss.

• The Judge tells the jurors it is their ‘duty to try and separate the facts from the fancy’. How do the jurors separate the facts from the fancy?


39

REFERENCES, RESOURCES AND SUPPLEMENTARY TEXTS Brantley, Ben, ‘Back in a Sweaty Room with 12 Seething Men’, 29 October 2004. (http://theater.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/theater/reviews/29angr.html

Bylsma, D. From Twelve Angry Men to Media Literacy, www.library.ubc.ca/.../12Dieder-Bylsma-12-Angry-Men-and-Media%20Literacy.pdf

Discovery Guide, Twelve Angry Men

Gilligan, K. Literary analysis: Layers of artifice in Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, www.helium.com/.../202482-layers-of-artifice-in-twelve-angry-men

Juror’s Handbook, Victoria Law Foundation, (downloadable from www.courts.vic.gov.au)

Lumet. Sidney Twelve Angry Men (1957 - MGM Films)

Marks, Peter, 'Twelve Angry Men' Returns With Conviction’, ‘Washington Post’, October 6, 2006. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/05)

Murray, Matthew, Theatre Review of Twelve Angry Men, 28 October 2004. (http://www.talkinbroadway.com/world/12AngryMen)

Rose, Reginald, ‘Author's Commentary,’ in Six Television Plays, Simon and Schuster, 1956. p. 156 (This book is out of print and impossible to purchase. I used a quote from http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/dfs)

Rose, R., Twelve Angry Men (2006) New York, Penguin.

‘They’re Just Twelve Angry Men’ Backstage Pass, www.mnsu.edu/theatre/about/images/.../Newsletter%20October%2009.pdf

Thomson, H. ‘12 Angry Men — a review’, The Age, 18 November 2004.

www.centertheatregroup.org/.../Twelve_Angry_Men/Twelve%20Angry%20Men%20DG.pdf

A clip from a theatre production of Twelve Angry Men showing the re-enactment of the old man’s version of events. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUR1K1fGDJ4

Please note: Most of the resources available online are summaries and analyses of the film, rather than the play. There are many differences between the two. This needs to be made very clear to students.

Other resources are based on editions of the play which are divided into three acts rather than two.

The play is titled Twelve Angry Men, whilst the film is titled, 12 Angry Men. Encourage students to take care when reading any material where the film title is used. The other film version made in the 1990s may also confuse students as the jury is cast to include African-Americans rather than twelve white men.