Twelve Angry Men

The 3rd Juror is a boastful self-made businessman. We learn at the start of the play that he “employ[s] thirty-seven people […] started with nothing” (Act I, 18). The 3rd Juror’s emphasis on the self-made nature of his success links him to both the American Dream and the increasingly capitalistic spirit of mid-20th century American culture. The 3rd Juror runs “a messenger service” (Act I, 18)—a rather ironic detail, since he is so poor at effective communication himself. He is aggressive and quick to anger, even attempting to attack the 8th Juror when provoked at the end of Act I.

The 3rd Juror is distinguished by his deeply conservative social views and his strong opinions about the relationships between fathers and their children. The 3rd Juror believes that youthful disobedience is at the root of crime, claiming, “It’s the kids, the way they are nowadays” while lamenting the supposed decline of reverence toward fathers (Act I, 28). The 3rd Juror reveals that he has been estranged for “two years” from his own adult son (Act I, 28), whom he calls a “Rotten kid” (Act I, 28). His family troubles exercise a strong and debilitating effect upon the 3rd Juror, as his bitterness toward his son colors his view of the accused and the trial. It is highly significant that the 3rd Juror is the last of the jury to cling to a “guilty” verdict. When the 8th Juror confronts him with the fact that the accused “is not [his] boy” (Act II, 92), the 3rd Juror finally reveals the full extent of his bias, calling the accused “That goddamn rotten kid” and identifying himself with the murdered father: “I can feel that knife goin’ in” (Act II, 92).

The 3rd Juror’s anger, violent temper, and troubled family dynamics therefore mirror the same qualities found in the off-stage murder victim and his father, serving within the jury room as a stand-in for the accused’s troubled home life. The fact that this successful businessman also faces the same family dilemmas as the accused suggests that such problems are universal, and that attributing such problems only to certain racial or socioeconomic groups—as many of the jurors wish to do—is not only bigoted but misleading.

Out of all of the jurors, the 10th Juror is perhaps the most deeply and openly prejudiced. He appears to be a mechanic by profession, as he speaks of serving clients at his “garage” (Act II, 76). The 10th Juror demonstrates deep hatred for racial and class minorities, accusing them of being “born liars” and “real trash” (Act I, 23; Act I, 28).

The 10th Juror’s rhetoric becomes more hateful and violent as the play progresses. It reaches its climax when the 10th Juror reveals that his real motivation in handing down a “guilty” verdict is to punish the accused simply for belonging to a particular group, regardless of his actual guilt or innocence: “I say get him before his kind gets us. I don’t give a goddamn about the law” (Act II, 84). The 10th Juror therefore embodies the very depths of prejudice, with his violent desires exposing the most dangerous form prejudice can take. Significantly, although he does change his vote to “not guilty” by the play’s end, he does so only out of frustration with the deliberations and not out of any change of heart. His stubbornness suggests that prejudice is not always easily overcome.

Unlike the other jurors, the 5th Juror has direct, lived experience of the community to which the accused belongs. Although at first quiet and reluctant to speak, the 5th Juror is stirred into action when he hears the 10th Juror call the children of the poor “real trash” (Act I, 28), countering, “I’ve lived in a slum all my life. I nurse that trash in Harlem Hospital six nights a week” (Act I, 28). In identifying himself as someone who has spent his life in a slum, he makes it clear that his own background is similar to that of the accused, creating a unique link between them. The 5th Juror’s allusion to “nurs[ing]” in “Harlem Hospital” reveals that he still lives within a poor (and predominantly Black) community, and that as a healthcare worker, he is devoted to providing support and care to the disadvantaged. The 5th Juror’s principled defense of the poor against the 10th Juror’s prejudiced insults shows him to be a man of compassion—someone who has a social conscience.

The 5th Juror’s direct experiences of slum life also give him a crucial role later in the jury’s deliberations. When examining the switchblade knife used as the murder weapon, the 5th Juror can offer insight into how such weapons are used. He also sheds light on the violent community that has helped to shape the accused, describing the slums as a place of many “fights” that occur constantly and in almost every locale (Act II, 79). The 5th Juror brings deeper insight into the world of the accused, while also offering a more compassionate perspective on the challenges the accused has faced due to his disadvantaged background. The 5th Juror is therefore an advocate for the poor within the jury room, standing in opposition to the reductive racial and class prejudices of the other jurors.