Josh Uyeda

Freestone
English 12
16 February 2016
12 Angry Men Analysis
The play 12 Angry Men written by Reginald Rose is an extremely interesting play in how
it demonstrates our current justice system. Some of the key concepts that are very clearly shown
in the play are racism, critical thinking, and group dynamics. All of this easily sway the way we
think, judge, and interpret a situation. All of which are especially important in the case of being
on a jury.
The most prominent and persuasive of the concepts would be racism. Racism still exists
even in todays courts and was much more of a prevalent issue in the early 1900s when this play
takes place. So in the time of the play, court juries were incredibly biased to favor against the
defendant if they were non-white, even if there wasnt valid evidence to prove guilty. People
were pronounced guilty not because they were guilty but because they were colored. Another
assumption and stereotype for colored people is that if they live in lower cost areas they are
automatically a bad person and either are aggressors or drug lords, etc.. Which was shown in
the play, the men assumed that since he came from a poorer area that he was a bad kid. Which is
jumping to conclusion based on race and environment which defeats the purpose of having a
jury. There is no fair verdict. This is still an issue even in todays court system, though it has
improved quite significantly, it isnt completely gone.
Another of the big issues that seriously affect how a jury decides a verdict is the
dynamics of group. Human psychology is very easily manipulated and if someone in the group is

very, very confident on a decision then people who are uncertain will see their confidence and be
certain on a decision based on their confidence. This is shown very easily in the play. A few of
the men are so set on him being guilty and how very loud they are of their opinion is hard to
voice against. The ridicule that comes with voicing against them and the whole group is very
difficult and most people easily break. Which plays into not thinking critically enough. People
who are too set on their opinion without thoroughly thinking through all of the evidence and the
validity. So how the group behaves as a whole very easily can sway the whole jurys decision.
Which again is against the point of having a jury to evaluate the evidence to make a verdict.
In conclusion to everything,c 12 Angry Men might be a bit of an exaggeration on one of
those incredibly rare case but it is accurate on all of the flaws of todays justice system. As much
as we wish it was perfect, we are humans and we have our biases that might not always help,
especially in our justice system in the forms of racism, group dynamics, and critical thinking.