Reginald Rose shows that individual motivations and prejudices make it difficult to be objective. Discuss.

Set in a 1950’s New York jury room, Reginald Rose’s play Twelve Angry Men explores the importance of remaining objective throughout the deliberation of a court case. Through his various characters, Rose conveys how personal agendas, or prejudices can significantly influence and challenge an individual to remain impartial throughout this process. Juror’s 3 and 10 best embody this point of view in which they carry into the jury room preconceived misconceptions about the defendant and personal baggage obscuring their judgment. To further this idea, Rose reinforces through Juror 8, and eventually Juror 11, the importance of neutrality to maintain a fair justice system and bring about an objective verdict.

The presence of prejudiced beliefs in the jury room results in some Jurors struggling to maintain an impartial outlook on the case and as a result this impacts on their vote. Juror 10 personifies Rose’s idea of how unfair preconceptions can stand in the way of a fair trial as he has a strong racial prejudice against the social group of the defendant, believing they are just ‘real trash’ which leads him to his judgement of ‘guilty’. Without question, he stereotypes the defendant as a ‘born liar’ as he reveals he has ‘lived among ‘em all [his] life’ and therefore is convinced he knows ‘the boy knifed’ his own father, due to his rough upbringing and substandard socioeconomic background. Juror 10’s bigoted outlook impedes him from examining any evidence or other information from the case as he is unwilling to ‘break [his] brains over scum’ like the defendant, therefore, he allows his prejudices about ‘slum people’ to blur his vision and prevent him from remaining objective throughout the deliberation process. Similarly, Juror 3 also has unjust views of the defendant as he envisages him as a representation of his own ‘rotten’ and ‘disappointing’ son. As a result of this troubled relationship, juror 3 projects his anger about his boy onto the defendant, generalizing, ‘It’s kids these days. Angry. Hostile’, which sees him continually attempt to convince the others that ‘the kid is guilty’ and ‘He’s got to burn’. This juror allows his biased views to distract him from his true job, instead of reviewing the evidence of the case and reaching a justified and fair verdict, he unconsciously derives his judgement from a personal view of young ‘kids’, concluding that ‘[he] knows what they’re like. What they do to you. How they kill you every day’, relating the boy on trial with his own son, ‘Jeez, I can feel the knife goin’ in’, thus, inhibiting him from remaining neutral throughout the trial. Therefore, through Juror’s 3 and 10, Rose personifies how prejudice’s that are carried into the jury room can obscure one’s vision and prevent a just decision from being reached, in which all evidence is thoroughly reviewed and discussed objectively.

The playwright, Rose, further explores the difficulty of remaining unprejudiced and open-minded if individual personal agendas are present in the jury room. As the play is set during 1950’s America, the social context reveals that racism is not recognised as a great offense, thus, many of the jurors exhibit an uninterested view regarding the trial and just want to ‘get [it] over with’. In particular, Juror 7’s impatience towards the case, due to the ‘baseball ticket burning through his pocket’, is reflected in his judgement, voting ‘guilty’, and through his behaviour for the duration of the deliberation process. His impression that the trial is a ‘goddamn waste of time’ and his determination to make it to a baseball game, inhibits and discourages him from examining the evidence presented during the trial minutely, in order to do his job correctly, and conclude if there is any ‘reasonable doubt’ surrounding the case. Therefore, Rose’s message through the characterization of Juror 7 is that, often an individual’s own motivations or personal agenda can present notable barriers to considering a case objectively and without outside influence. To further this idea, the playwright utilizes a chain of stage directions to detail the reluctance of some characters to take the trial seriously and not allow their personal agendas to overshadow the responsibility of having a fair and impartial outlook on the case. Rose describes Juror’s 10 and 12 to be playing ‘tic-tac-toe’ and ‘doodling on a sheet’, as they have already determined their verdicts of ‘guilty’ without feeling the need to discuss the case further. These jurors’ demonstrate an inability to obtain an objective view on the trial as they both have preconceived ideas about the defendant and personal motives, which may influence their votes and prevent them from ‘separating the facts from the fancy’. Overall, the apathetic behaviour of many jurors, particularly Juror’s 7, 10 and 12, brings about difficulty in staying objective causing some jurors to not even bother attempting to analyse the evidence and reach an equitable decision.

In support of his idea, that objectivity can be difficult to maintain due to the presence of prejudice and personal agendas, Rose establishes through some jurors the importance of neutrality to sustain an unbiased and fair judgement. The playwright juxtaposes Juror 8 with Juror 3 to reveal how particular behaviours and prejudices can lead to a biased outlook, where as remaining patient, tolerant and removing all personal opinions from the judgement enables Juror 8 to remain objective. Juror 8 reiterates the concept of ‘reasonable doubt’ as he believes he ‘cannot send a boy off to die without talking about it first’, as the other jurors have done, merely basing their verdict on preconceived perceptions. Rose portrays Juror 8 as the protagonist of the play, as he symbolizes the ideal justice system, in which he acknowledges that they must ‘deliberate honestly and thoughtfully’ and are required to explore the evidence meticulously as ‘sometimes the facts staring you in the face are wrong’. He further reinforces his ability to remain impartial, seeing past the race, age and socioeconomic disadvantage of the boy on trial as he ‘kept putting [himself] in the boys place’ empowering him to question the evidence and ‘separate the facts from the fancy’. It is this refusal to let his emotions interfere in the case, which frees him of any bias views and enables Juror 8 to solely ensure there is no miscarriage of justice and honestly follow the law. Therefore, Juror 8 strengthens Rose’s message of the necessity of maintaining an unbiased and fair point of view, bereft of preconceived misconceptions, to guarantee that an objective conclusion will be attained.

Reginald Rose’s exploration of the justice system highlights the difficulty in remaining objective throughout the deliberation process of a court case. Only when the jurors are relieved of preconceived misconceptions, personal motivations and prejudiced views, can an upright and just verdict be obtained. Through several jurors, in particular Juror 3 and Juror 10, Rose emphasises how preconceived ideas and personal opinions regarding age, race and background can significantly hinder one’s ability to remain impartial and not have their judgements obscured. Additionally, Juror 7 confirms how one’s own preoccupations can result in a disdained interest in the case and therefore, impede the value of a jury to find a just outcome. Reinforced by Juror 8, the play reveals to the audience that the only way a fair verdict can be established is without the presence of prejudiced views and personal motives to ensure there is no ‘reasonable doubt’ surrounding the case.