Twelve Angry Men

“I run a messenger service. ‘The Beck and Call Company.’ The name’s my wife’s idea. I employ thirty-seven people […] started with nothing.” 

The 3rd Juror’s boast about his successful company serves as a stereotypical example of the American Dream. The 3rd Juror takes pride in both his entrepreneurial success (“I employ thirty-seven people”) while also emphasizing his self-sufficiency by claiming he “started with nothing.” The 3rd Juror represents the more materialistic, self-satisfied aspect of the American Dream myth, which perhaps explains why he regards those from less fortunate circumstances—such as the accused and his poor Harlem community—with contempt instead of compassion.

“What figures? It’s those people! I’m tellin’ you they let the kids run wild up there. Well, maybe it serves ’em right. Know what I mean?” 

The 10th Juror’s attitude at the start of deliberations foreshadows the highly racist outbursts he will engage in throughout the play. From the very beginning, the 10th Juror is engaging in “us and them” rhetoric and using prejudiced generalizations to dismiss both the accused and his community. Like the 3rd Juror, the 10th Juror embodies deeply conservative and patriarchal attitudes toward familial authority, blaming the Harlem community’s problems on how “they let the kids run wild up there.” His flippant attitude toward his jury services also surfaces in his dismissive comment, “[M]aybe it serves ’em right,” as though ensuring justice is served for both the accused and the murder victim is of little importance to him.

“Look, this boy’s been kicked around all his life. You know—living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. He spent a year and a half in an orphanage while his father served a jail term for forgery. That’s not a very good head start. He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That is all.” 

The battle lines between the prejudiced, generalized thinking of most of the jurors and the more nuanced, contextualized thinking the 8th Juror advocates emerge in the above speech, forming one of the key tensions in the play. In opposition to the prejudiced rhetoric of the 3rd and 10th jurors, the 8th Juror presents an alternative viewpoint: Instead of dismissing the accused based on his racial and class background, it is instead best to think of how his individual circumstances have impacted him (“He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years”) and to weigh the evidence accordingly. The 8th Juror’s emphasis on the accused’s violent, troubled upbringing also speaks to the dark side of the American Dream myth—while people like the 3rd Juror pride themselves on their self-made success, people like the accused enjoy far fewer opportunities to reach their potential. As the 8th Juror says, the accused had “not a very good head start” in life, which may in turn explain his past troubles with the law.

“We don’t owe him a thing. He got a fair trial, didn’t he? What d’you think the trial cost? He’s lucky he got it […] Now, you’re not going to tell us that we’re supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I’ve lived among ’em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say. I mean, they’re born liars.” 

The 10th Juror’s speech here is riddled with contradictions. While the 10th Juror tries to hasten along the jury’s proceedings by claiming the accused already “got a fair trial,” his attitude ironically underlines just how unfair and prejudiced their treatment of him actually is. The contemptuous claim that the accused was “lucky” to receive a trial at all speaks to the 10th Juror’s underlying belief in the inherent inferiority of racial and class minorities, as though the accused received a trial more as a privilege than as a citizen’s basic right. The “us and them” rhetoric appears here again, with the 10th Juror insisting, “[T]hey’re born liars,” and judging the accused purely on his background: “[Y]ou’re not going to tell us we’re supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is.” The 10th Juror’s words illustrate the prejudices of many of the jurors and raise the question of whether objectivity is possible within the American justice system.

“It’s one of the products I work on at the ad agency. Rice Pops. ‘The breakfast with the built-in bounce.’ I wrote that line.” 

Over the course of the play, the reader gradually learns about the professions and backgrounds of many of the jurors through their speech and behavior. In this quotation, we learn that the 12th Juror works in an “ad agency.” The reference to one of the agency’s products and the catchy advertising slogan the 12th Juror created for it gesture toward the rise of American commercialism in the mid-20th century. Like the “self-made businessman” image of the 3rd Juror, the 12th Juror’s work in advertising speaks to the materialistic, capitalistic side of the American Dream. The fact that the 12th Juror is doodling and thinking about his ad work while sitting in the jury room also highlights the dismissive attitude many of the jurors initially have toward their jury service.

“Well, I don’t think it’s a very strong motive. This boy has been hit so many times in his life that violence is practically a normal state of affairs for him. I can’t see two slaps in the face provoking him into committing murder.”

The 8th Juror says this to the 6th Juror. In discussing the troubled background of the accused, the 8th Juror challenges the assumption that the accused must have killed his father due to the latter’s prior violent conduct. There are two important aspects to this quotation. First, the 8th Juror once again reminds the jury of the disadvantages the accused has faced all his life: “[V]iolence is practically a normal state of affairs for him.” The 8th Juror’s reference to the accused’s background therefore emphasizes the importance of individual context when considering the evidence in the trial. Second, the 8th Juror challenges the idea that the accused was inevitably driven to murder by pointing out that his background might have made him less likely to commit the crime: “I can’t see two slaps in the face provoking him into committing murder.” The 8th Juror’s alternative viewpoint helps to disrupt the prejudiced assumptions of the other jurors, inviting them to view the evidence from more than one angle.

“Look at his record. He was in Children’s Court at ten for throwing a rock at his teacher. At fourteen he was in Reform School. He stole a car. He’s been arrested for mugging. He was picked up twice for trying to slash another teenager with a knife. He’s real quick with switch knives, they said. This is a very fine boy.” 

The 7th Juror outlines here the troubled background of the accused, giving the reader more information about the accused’s life prior to his trial. This summary emphasizes a pattern of violence and criminality in the accused’s conduct: “throwing a rock,” “stole a car,” “mugging,” and “trying to slash another teenager with a knife.” This alerts the reader to the fact that the accused’s criminal record feeds into the prejudices many of the jurors already have, making them less disposed to weigh the evidence objectively. The reference to the accused being “real quick with switch knives” is important, as it foreshadows the importance of the switch knife later in the play.

“It’s the kids, the way they are nowadays […] Listen, when I was his age I used to call my father ‘Sir.’ That’s right, ‘Sir!’ You ever hear a boy call his father that anymore?” 

The 3rd Juror’s outburst against “the way [kids] are nowadays” reveals his recurrent fixation on the problem of disobedient children. His patriarchal, deeply conservative attitude emerges as he reminisces about the excessive deference he showed toward his own father (“I used to call my father ‘Sir’”) and laments that today no “boy” does the same. This preoccupation with father-and-son dynamics mirrors the essence of the trial itself, as the accused is on trial for murdering his father. The 3rd Juror’s angry attitude toward sons and their lack of respect is rooted in his own estrangement from his son—a fact that will grow in importance as the play progresses.

“Children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society.” 

Racial and class prejudices often intertwine in the play. The 4th Juror here displays prejudice against poorer citizens, characterizing those from “slum backgrounds”—such as the accused—as “potential menaces to society.” The 4th Juror, as a broker, enjoys a comfortable existence far removed from the “slums” he speaks of, and his willingness to see those less fortunate as “menaces to society” speaks to the deep divisions in America. He speaks in a way that suggests those from the slums are somehow apart from “society”—as if they are outside rather than within it. The 4th Juror’s willingness to see the poor as somehow separate from society reminds the reader of the strong prejudices at play within the jury and of the multiple barriers people like the accused face when trying to receive a fair trial.

“There is something personal!” 

This angry interjection from the 5th Juror reveals the underlying class tensions that exist even within the jury room, embodying in miniature the wider class tensions of American society. The 5th Juror, as someone raised in the slums and still a part of the Harlem community, has greater insight into the circumstances of the accused than the other jurors. Angered by the 4th and 10th Jurors’ prejudice toward people from the slums, the 5th Juror finds his voice. His insistence that the prejudice shown by the 10th Juror is indeed “personal” speaks to the importance of individual context over crass generalizations. In objecting to the way other jurors misrepresent people from the slums, the 5th Juror creates a space for dialogue between the different classes.

“12TH JUROR: Well, now, listen. Nobody can know a thing like that. This isn’t an exact science.

8th JUROR: That’s right. It isn’t.” 

This exchange between the 12th Juror and the 8th Juror highlights the ambiguities and complexities the jurors face in trying to achieve a fair verdict. The 12th Juror’s insistence that “This isn’t an exact science” signals that attitudes within the jury room are starting to undergo a gradual change from certainty to something more open-minded. In agreeing with the 12th Juror, the 8th Juror emphasizes once again his commitment to examining the situation from multiple angles. The idea of doubt, of the lack of “exact” knowledge, will continue to stand in opposition to the more generalized and prejudiced thinking of characters like the 10th Juror.

“It’s only one night. A boy may die.” 

These lines are spoken by the 9th Juror, who will be the second juror to change his vote of “guilty” to “not guilty.” The way in which the 9th Juror rejects haste in favor of more careful ongoing deliberation dramatizes the gradual change in attitudes amongst the jury. While several of the other jurors previously expressed their desire to get the deliberations over with as quickly as possible, here the 9th Juror suggests that the task at hand is far more pressing than anyone else’s plans: “A boy may die.” His use of the word “boy” instead of “man” also reveals that the 9th Juror has begun to humanize the accused (who is only in his teens), signaling a willingness to take a more compassionate and nuanced view of the case.

“He [the 8th Juror] doesn’t say the boy’s not guilty. He just isn’t sure. Well, it’s not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others. He gambled for support and I gave it to him. I respect his motives. The boy on trial is probably guilty. But I want to hear more.” 

During a pivotal moment in the play, the 9th Juror admits to changing his initial vote. The 9th Juror’s change of vote allows the deliberations to continue and represents the start of a shift in the attitudes of the other jury members. While the 9th Juror maintains that the accused “is probably guilty,” he reasons that the doubt the 8th Juror has expressed is quite principled, as it allows for more careful weighing of the evidence: “He just isn’t sure.” The 9th Juror’s acknowledgement that “it’s not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others” also highlights the contrast between the 9th Juror’s more humane, measured approach and the generalized prejudice of the other jurors. The 9th’s Juror’s change of vote here foreshadows the changing votes of the other jurors over the rest of the play.

“You know what the soft sell is? You’re pretty good at it. I’ll tell ya. I’ve got a different technique. Jokes. Drinks. Knock ’em on their asses. I made twenty-seven thousand last year selling marmalade […] What are ya getting out of it—kicks? The boy is guilty, pal.” 

In speaking to the 8th Juror, the 7th Juror emphasizes his profession as a salesman. He displays his reductive, materialistic attitude in the way he describes the 8th Juror’s opposing stance as a “soft sell” instead of a matter of genuine principle. The 7th Juror’s brag about his own salesman abilities (“I made twenty-seven thousand last year selling marmalade”) and his refusal to see the 8th Juror as motivated by anything other than “kicks,” or perhaps vanity, reveal his shallow character and lack of scruples. Like the self-made businessman 3rd Juror and the 12th juror, who is an ad agent, the 7th Juror represents the more materialistic and grasping side of the American Dream. His insistence that the accused “is guilty, pal” betrays his stubbornness and reluctance to consider the evidence more objectively.

“Nobody knows him, nobody quotes him, nobody seeks his advice after seventy-five years. That’s a very sad thing, to be nothing. A man like this needs to be recognized, to be listened to, to be quoted just once. This is very important. It would be hard for him to recede into the background […].” 

The 9th Juror speaks here about one of the witnesses for the prosecution, who claims to have overheard the murder and to have seen the accused fleeing the scene of the crime. Like the 9th Juror himself, the eyewitness is an elderly man. The 9th Juror offers an alternative explanation for why the eyewitness has testified against the accused. He suggests that the eyewitness has led a life of anonymity and no importance: “That’s a very sad thing, to be nothing.” The 9th Juror then suggests that the trial has given the eyewitness a chance to be heard for once, and that this newfound attention would make it “hard for him to recede into the background.” The 9th Juror, like the 5th Juror, draws upon his personal experiences to gain greater insight into the trial. His willingness to consider the personal context of the eyewitness allows him to see the trial from a new angle and reconsider the evidence accordingly.

“Well, it could mean a lot of things. It could mean he didn’t want the case. It could mean he resented being appointed. It’s the kind of case that brings him nothing. No money. No glory. Not even much chance of winning. It’s not a very promising situation for a young lawyer. He’d really have to believe in his client to make a good fight. As you pointed out a minute ago, he obviously didn’t.” 

In this passage, the 8th Juror reflects upon the possible shortcomings of the accused’s defense, as the accused had a court-appointed lawyer instead of a privately-hired one. The fact that the defense lawyer was court-appointed emphasizes the poverty of the accused, who cannot pay for more prestigious legal representation. The 8th Juror points out that the defense lawyer “obviously didn’t” believe in the accused and therefore did not bother to offer a robust argument against the prosecution. The 8th Juror’s acknowledgement that such a case brings the lawyer “No money” and “No glory” touches upon another flaw within the justice system: Sometimes lawyers are more motivated by material gain or ego than a love of justice.

“Ever since we walked into this room you’ve been behaving like a self-appointed public avenger […] You want to see this boy die because you personally want it, not because of the facts.” 

The 8th Juror here accuses the 3rd Juror directly of using the trial as a way of assuaging his own sense of bitterness. In accusing the 3rd Juror of acting like a “self-appointed public avenger,” the 8th Juror points out the 3rd Juror’s lack of objectivity and professionalism toward his jury duty. The 8th Juror’s allusion to the 3rd Juror wanting the accused to die “because [he] personally want[s] it” foreshadows the 3rd Juror’s outburst at the play’s end, which explicitly reveals the 3rd Juror’s motivation. In confronting the 3rd Juror in this manner, the 8th Juror also hopes to prove a point by revealing how a man can become angry without necessarily resorting to murder. This tactic illustrates in real time that anger does not always lead to violence, suggesting that the accused might not have murdered his father.

“This is not why we are here, to fight. We have a responsibility. This, I have always thought, is a remarkable thing about democracy. That we are, uh, what is the word? Notified. That we are notified by mail to come down to this place and decide on the innocence or guilt of a man we have never heard of before. We have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict. This is one of the reasons we are strong. We should not make it a personal thing.” 

The words of the 11th Juror, an immigrant to America, speak to the more idealistic side of the American Dream myth. While jurors such as the 3rd, 7th, and 10th Jurors represent American materialism and selfishness, the 11th Juror represents a more altruistic American ideal. He calls the jury system “a remarkable thing about democracy” and claims that the potential for equality and objectivity within the American justice system is “one of the reasons we are strong.” In making this speech, the 11th Juror tries to foster a more idealistic patriotism in his fellow jurors in the hopes that they will no longer “fight.” The 11th Juror, as an immigrant, therefore pushes back against the prejudices of the other jurors by reminding them of their “responsibility” and urging them to come together as equals.

“How d’ya like this guy? I’m tellin’ ya they’re all alike. He comes over to this country running for his life and before he can even take a big breath he’s telling us how to run the show. The arrogance of the guy!” 

The 7th Juror responds to the 11th Juror’s idealistic view of American justice by once again displaying prejudice, this time against immigrants. Just as the 4th Juror spoke of the poor as though they were apart from society in Act I, here the 7th Juror speaks of immigrants as if they still were not truly Americans: “[H]e’s telling us how to run the show.” Instead of accepting the 11th Juror’s image of America as more democratic and idealistic than his own, the 7th Juror instead seeks to delegitimize the 11th Juror’s arguments by accusing him of “arrogance.” This act of projection reveals the 7th Juror’s own arrogance and insecurity, while also suggesting that the patriotism of immigrants might often be purer and more altruistic than that of many American-born citizens. This passage also reveals that prejudice against immigrants is yet another form of prejudice that threatens to undermine the American ideal of equality.

“Too many of them [fights]. On my stoop. In my backyard. In the lot across the street. Switch knives came with the neighborhood where I lived. Funny, I wasn’t thinking of it. I guess you try to forget those things. You don’t use this kind of knife that way. You have to hold it like this to release the blade. In order to stab downward, you would have to change your grip.” 

In these lines, the personal experiences of the 5th Juror are of crucial importance in interpreting a key piece of evidence: the murder weapon. As someone raised in a slum who still works with the community there, the 5th Juror understands the omnipresent violence of day-to-day life: “Switch knives came with the neighborhood where I lived.” The 5th Juror’s repressed memories of the violence he witnessed (“I guess you try to forget those things”) allow him to understand how the crime could or could not have been committed: “You have to hold it like this to release the blade.” Since a switch knife was the murder weapon, the 5th Juror’s knowledge helps the jury re-enact the crime to test the probability of the accused as the murderer. This re-enactment introduces further ambiguity into the evidence of the trial, making the guilt of the accused less certain.

“We’re facing a danger here. Don’t you know it? These people are multiplying. That kid on trial, his type, they’re multiplying five times as fast as we are. That’s the statistic. Five times. And they’re—wild animals. They’re against us, they hate us, they want to destroy us. That’s right […] This boy, this boy on trial here. We’ve got him. That’s one at least. I say get him before his kind gets us. I don’t give a goddamn about the law. Why should I? They don’t.” 

The prejudices of the 10th Juror reach their climax in this speech, in which he reveals the extent of his hatred toward (probably) people of color and (definitely) the lower classes. Once again there is the emphasis on “us and them,” with the 10th Juror speaking of “These people” as though they belong to a separate society altogether. The 10th Juror further dehumanizes the racial minority by calling them “wild animals” and projecting his own violent hatred onto the group he wishes to eliminate: “[T]hey hate us, they want to destroy us.” Most explicitly of all, the 10th Juror admits that he doesn’t “give a goddamn about the law,” and that he is more motivated by a thirst for racial vengeance than a desire for justice: “I say get him before his kind gets us.” The 10th Juror’s conflation of the accused with the racial and class groups he belongs to—“We’ve got him. That’s one at least.”—further emphasizes his dangerously prejudiced, essentialized thinking, in which individuals are judged by group stereotypes instead of on their own merits. The 10th Juror’s rant exposes more fully the ways in which personal prejudice threatens the integrity of the justice system.

“It’s very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth.” 

After the 10th Juror’s rant, the 8th Juror reflects upon the dangers prejudice within the justice system presents. On one hand, he acknowledges that it is “very hard” to keep one’s personal prejudices apart from one’s evaluation of the evidence. In other words, the objectivity the justice system demands in theory is very difficult to apply in practice. On the other hand, that only makes confronting and eliminating prejudice all the more essential, as “prejudice obscures the truth.” Throughout the jury’s deliberations, the various racial and class prejudices at play have been exposed and questioned. The struggle between prejudice and objectivity raises uncomfortable questions about the workings of the justice system, while also suggesting the possibility of change if people effectively confront their biases.

“No one wears eyeglasses to bed.” 

Just as the 9th Juror had insight into the elderly eyewitness, and the 5th Juror had insight into the uses of a switchblade, here the 4th Juror helps the jury understand one of the key elements of the other eyewitness’s testimony: her eyesight. The 4th Juror is responding here to questions regarding the use of heavy prescription glasses, which make indents on the side of his nose. Since the female eyewitness also had indents on her nose, the other jury members wish to know if she could have actually seen the murder from a distance while in bed. In admitting that “No one wears eyeglasses to bed,” the 4th Juror raises issues with the reliability of the female eyewitness’s testimony, as she would not have been able to witness the crime without her glasses on. The eyeglasses also function as a symbol for sight in both a metaphorical and literal sense. While prejudice “obscures” the truth—as the 8th Juror says earlier—a willingness to consider all sides of an issue enables one to “see” more clearly and objectively. The 4th Juror’s eyeglasses thus become a symbol of the improved “sight” of many of the jurors regarding the trial.