Reginald Rose Case

It is no doubt that Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men sets a blistering character study and examination of the American legal system. Throughout the play, Rose gradually peels away the layers of artifice from the men in order to paint a fuller picture of them and America during the 1950's. Of the twelve jurors, the eighth juror is the first and only one to vote 'not guilty' in the beginning of the play. He doesn't intend to change people's minds, just to give the time to reconsider their votes. During the play he uses logic and demonstrations in attempt to present the facts differently. While expressing his thoughts, the language he uses is more wild and open to suggestions and soon begins to persuade the other jurors into changing their minds.

Logical reasoning and demonstrations played a major role in swaying the 'guilty' votes of the jury. "I'm not asking anyone to accept it, I'm just saying it's possible." Looking at the facts and drilling deeper into the events that took place on the night of the murder, Juror Eight was able to convince the other jurors that despite the sources and evidence found, logical reasoning's and true evidence were the factors that resulted in the other jurors changing their minds.

Rather than deliberately proving the other jurors wrong, he simply put forward a logical and alternative point of view. "I just want to talk." Juror Eight also used identical evidence such as the switch knife and demonstrated the way of the murder by reenacting the event. By using these techniques, Juror Eight was able to persuade some of the jurors into changing their vote.

Using colloquial language and suppressing his temper, Juror Eight delivered his arguments in an acceptable manner. Throughout the play, Juror Eight remained calm whilst presenting his opinion and often used language, which lead on the other jurors to more open suggestions. "I think maybe we owe him a few words." Juror Eight encouraged the jury to not only compare opinions but to also discuss the evidence and acted as a sort of mediator of the group. Rose demonstrated his character as somewhat strong and level headed as he accepted others biases however, knew when to demonstrate his own opinion. "I haven't got anything brilliant. I only know as much as you do." The open-minded nature of his character and the form of language used, Juror Eight easily delivered his arguments in an acceptable manner in attempt to change the point of view of the jury.

Other jurors were also essential in offering reasons for the verdict of an unanimous 'not guilty.' "Um...There's something I'd like to say." - Juror Two. As Juror Eight began to gradually convince the other jurors that the defendant was not guilty, some