Twelve Angry Men

Tension between fathers and sons is one of the key themes in the play. How does the 3rd Juror’s relationship with his estranged son reflect the relationship between the accused and his own father? What do these two relationships tell us about problematic family dynamics within the play, and how do they relate to the play’s wider themes?

The 5th Juror appears to be the only juror with direct, lived experience of the Harlem community and the poverty within it. What role does the 5th Juror play throughout the jury’s deliberations, and what insight does he give readers into the social world of the accused?

None of the jurors receive names in the play, and we are instead only gradually able to differentiate them through their views, different professions, and styles of speech. How does the playwright create characterization using these elements? Why do you think the playwright chooses to leave the jurors nameless, and what significance does it have in relation to the play’s themes?

The myth of the American Dream haunts Twelve Angry Men. While the experiences of the 11th Juror, as an immigrant, suggest that America is a land of refuge and opportunity for many, the experiences of the accused and even the 5th Juror offer a contrasting, darker view. Explore these two viewpoints. What roles do these contrasting viewpoints play within the text? Can they be reconciled? Why or why not?

There are several professions represented amongst the jurors: salesman, advertising agent, architect, healthcare worker, house painter, etc. What is the significance of these professions within the play? What do they reflect in terms of themes, characterization, or the play’s representation of American culture in the mid-20th century?

Consider the role of the American jury system in Twelve Angry Men and how the play depicts it. Is the depiction ultimately favorable, or are there lingering questions about the jury system’s validity?

The 8th Juror invokes the idea of “reasonable doubt” to justify why deliberations must take place, and he repeatedly reverts to the possibility of doubt when disputing some of the trial’s evidence. Why is doubt significant within the play? Are there any limitations or problems that arise due to this reliance upon “reasonable doubt”? Why or why not? How does doubt relate to the idea of justice more broadly?

The play often suggests that the accused’s background and prior experiences are crucial to understanding him and, by extension, judging him fairly. Yet the jurors are also shaped by their own backgrounds and experiences. Choose two or three of the jurors and analyze them both individually and in relation to one another. How do their personal experiences shape their prejudices and attitudes toward the trial? What relationship does individual subjectivity have with the ideal of objectivity in the play?