Twelve Angry Men pt. 3

In the end of the play, Twelve Angry Men, all of the men are starting to change their verdict to not guilty and saying things like, "I'm sorry. I'm convinced." and "...there is reasonable doubt". Juror 8 becomes the majority instead of the minority like he started out. If an element were to change in this book such as gender of the jurors, (I'm aware the book can also go by Twelve Angry Women, but I am speaking hypothetically based off of stereotypes.) I feel like the conversation would be much more emotional, stereotypically. A lot more of the jurors would feel bad for the boy and vote not guilty or at least want to discuss the case further. The story would also be different if the plot happened today. The case would be close to open and shut with all of the technology advancements like DNA, security cameras, and other things that help investigators solve crimes in today's society. Another element that would drastically change the story is if the boy had died. The jurors would probably be arguing over whether it was a murder-suicidr, or if both the father and boy had been murdered together. So many aspects could change the story drastically. I feel the story is best the way it is.

Twelve Angry Men Pt. 2

     Throughout the middle of the play, Twelve Angry Men, room for an untold story is evident. The play can represent the untold story of a jury. It shows how deciding whether a man is guilty or not is not always as simple as some may think. Most people think juries go into a room, all vote together, and leave the room and say the man is guilty. But in reality, juries go in and vote only to find out one person disagrees, just as juror 8 did in this play by saying, "...it's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die...". Once one disagrees, they all must talk to find a unanimous vote. Most would think that The one juror who disagrees would come to their senses and change their mind, but Twelve Angry Men proves that wrong by convincing 11 other jurors that his point of view on this crime is correct and all 11 of them are wrong. People would also think this process happens quickly but in reality, it takes hours, upon hours. The whole play displays the untold story of a jury. If this play hadn’t been made, people wouldn’t have a realistic picture of how a jury actually concludes their verdict of guilty or not guilty. I think this is an important story to be told because many people blame jurors when a friend or loved one is convicted of a crime, when in reality, they more than likely went to extreme lengths to find a verdict.