payment page
Twelve Angry Men explores the jury deliberation process in a homicide trial in New York City. Centering on a 16-year-old boy accused of murdering his father, the courtroom drama delves into how personal experiences, discrimination, and emotion can impede the American justice system, and how reason, logic, and compassion can protect and uphold due process. Throughout the play, a single member of the jury, the 8th Juror, expresses his doubt about the prosecution’s case, and in doing so he gradually convinces even the most antagonistic jurors to vote for an acquittal. During this process, the motivations for many of the jurors are revealed, and they often have more to do with personal bias instead of the case at hand or the boy whose life is on the line. The play also explores the slippery nature of the truth and how difficult it is for many of the men to accept the uncertainty inherent in the proceedings.
The inciting incident occurs when the jury casts the first vote. Eleven of the jurors, many of whom believe they’ve heard an iron-clad case against the boy, vote to convict, and the 8th Juror is only person to vote “not guilty.” This is the springboard for the rest of the narrative, and many of the jurors’ most impactful character traits come to light in these initial interactions. For example, by arguing that the boy deserves their thoughtful consideration and time, the 8th Juror illustrates his bravery. He stands against the rest of the jury and isn't afraid to voice his commitment to compassion and reason. In contrast, the 7th Juror is impatient and cavalier, attempting to rush the process along because he has tickets to a ballgame. The 10th Juror explicitly reveals his racism by immediately referring to people of the boy’s race as “those people” and by making disparaging remarks about their characters. The 3rd Juror immediately says he knew all along that the boy was guilty, and soon after the initial vote, he reveals a story about his toxic relationship with his estranged son. This illustrates that his vote for conviction is less about the case and more about his personal feelings. As the play progresses, the deliberation becomes a battle between reason and personal bias.
The play takes place entirely in the jury room on a hot summer day in New York City, which adds to the sense of tension and claustrophobia that builds throughout the deliberation. The jurors are physically and emotionally uncomfortable as they face both the relentless swelter and the growing heat of their disagreements. The heat also exacerbates the situation by making the jurors even more restless and irritable. As Act II begins, a storm brews outside, and the fractures within the jury nearly lead to blows. The biased jurors’ hot tempers meet the cool-headed reason of the other jurors, creating a perfect storm. The structure and atmosphere of the play contribute to and mirror the tension and tenor of the jury’s powerful discussion.
The rising action occurs when the 8th Juror produces the second knife, thereby poking a hole in the prosecution’s argument that the boy had a one-of-a-kind knife and that, therefore, the boy’s knife must be the murder weapon. The existence of a second, identical knife alters many of the jurors’ perspectives. The second knife is a physical representation of a second possible truth. While previous discussion has centered on ideas, possibilities, and reinterpretations, the dramatic moment when the 8th Juror reveals the second knife provides possible concrete evidence for reasonable doubt. With two knives on the table, the jurors cast a second vote, and this time, the 9th Juror joins the 8th in a vote for “not guilty.” The jurors continue to examine each aspect of the prosecution’s argument in meticulous detail. They discuss the boy’s alibi and his memory, how quickly the old man could move, the possibility that the train impeded the witness’s ability to hear the crime, and the second witness’s ability to see the crime take place without her glasses.
The play’s climax occurs when the 3rd Juror is the lone stand-out after all the other jurors have voted "not guilty." The entire play has built up to this moment, which is a mirror of the initial vote, when the 8th Juror stood alone against the other eleven jurors. This time, instead of making an argument for reason and compassion as the 8th Juror did, the 3rd Juror struggles to stick to the facts at all. As the rest of the jury looks on in silence, he breaks down. He says he can feel the knife going into his own body, emphasizing that for him, the case has always been about his estrangement from his own son. The other jurors plead with him to see past his personal issues and emphasize that the boy on trial is not his son. He finally is able to make the decision based on the case and not his emotions. With his vote for “not guilty,” the play ends as the men leave the jury room to deliver their verdict. The 8th and 3rd Jurors, representing reason and personal bias respectively, are the last two to leave.
