Twelve Angry Men Paper Draft 1

Montana Baker 

Professor Devine 

ENG195A 

Each of the jurors in Twelve Angry Men have a different personality that goes along with what they do for a living. This plays a major role in the decision they come to when it comes to reaching a verdict on the young man who is accused of murder. Between all twelve of the jurors there is a wide variety when it comes to social status and class. The importance of both the time period and characterization intertwin, which was done on purpose by Rose to make the play that much more intriguing for the audience. 

Juror Four is identified by his wealth and his intelligence, both going back to his job as a stockbroker. He is portrayed as logical planning at the beginning of Act Two to persuade the verdict "just by logic" (Rose 35). His insensitive behavior throughout most of the play also shows how little he is affected based on personal experience. His social status creates this sense that he is above the other jurors and portrays that juror four is used to having an attentive audience to listen to him. There is a sense of trust put into his opinions by the other members of the jury.  The main concern juror four has is looking at the evidence to make the decision, not at how much of an awful life the teenager has had because that isn't, in his opinion, what is important. Logically looking at a murder case includes going over the facts until there is no way to doubt the verdict that needs to be decided on without any room for question. He even suggests the reasoning behind the crime, it being "those beatings as a motive for him to kill his father" (Rose 17). The evidence that the court has provided held up in court, so juror four is determined that the young man should be held responsible for the murder. More than half of the group follows him in the guilty verdict, but despite this there are still jurors who want to prove the innocence of the accused by showing the holes in the evidence. His dependence on the facts and the apparent witnesses begin to change his verdict towards the end of the play when the others help tear apart the things that do not, in fact, make the witnesses or evidence solid. 

Along with juror four relying heavily on the facts of the case, his insensitive personality is allow followed by a very even temperament. Juror four remains calm throughout a majority of Twelve Angry Men, despite the fact that the other members on the jury are continuously getting upset and offended by someone else's comment or opinion. He states multiple times that the arguing that is occurring and the volume of the conversation is unnecessary and is not helping them all reach the final verdict. However, the one comment that infuriates Juror Four is when Juror ten begins racist comments. This allows the audience insight as to what juror four truly stands for and what he feels strongly about. This presents to us a dismissal of his insensitive demeanor that we see in the first half of the play, allowing us to characterize him differently than we may have in the beginning. 

The central character in Twelve Angry Men has to be the first one to support the verdict of not guilty, which is Juror Eight. His singular vote prevents the unanimous vote from happening simply because "It's not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first" and he believes in a fair chance to live (Rose 12). This action creates the very long discussion about whether or not the accused is in fact a murderer.  He encourages the other members to pay closer attention to the details and the facts of the case. This attention to detail is prevalent since Juror Eight makes his living as an architect. In order for any piece of literature or film to be successful you must have antagonist(s) and protagonist(s), for example the other jurors who decide to vote guilty versus juror eight who decides to give this young man a shot at a fair trial. His demeanor, like Juror Four's, is calm, despite the opposition he faces throughout the first act of the play. His job as an architect becomes important in looking at the possibility of the witnesses' claims based on the structure of the building which leads to the evidence being impossible. Eight is confident in his choice of verdict and he does not waiver on his choice despite Juror Three's nasty remarks throughout the whole entire play. 

Juror three is the most negative in Twelve Angry Men and is very selfish, constantly bragging up his small business and showing little interest in discussing the possibility of a nonguilty verdict. His lack of concern is shown by how he mentions "I was falling asleep" and "did you ever hear so many people talk about nothing?" (Rose 7). He portrays the exact opposite of how Juror Four acts despite his upper level class. Three is the very last of the jury members to switch his verdict from guilty to not guilty. His choice in the guilty verdict seems to rely heavily on the bad relationship he has with his own son, even though he demands that his opinion "has no personal feelings" (Rose 14). He finally realizes that this young man is not guilty after everyone else when he realizes the only reason behind his verdict is because of the situation that occurred with his own son. His selfishness is shown by the way he portrays incidents in his life into the case.  

Rose creates characterization based upon the jobs she gives to each of the jurors. Each of their personalities go along with their social status and class, however all of their verdicts come down to not guilty when they realize that this verdict is in fact the right one to give to the young man. Without this strong characterization there would be no intriguing plot line for the readers' or audience to follow.