The play “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose contains many elements that examine the implementation of the American justice system in 1957 and help shape the deliberations of the affair. Perhaps the most important element is the relationship between Juror 3 and Juror 8, as the constant conflict between these two drives the drama's narrative, allowing other important elements to develop and be explored. The conflict between Juror 3 and Juror 8 does not exist in isolation: what they discuss resonates with the other jurors who naturally gravitate toward one “side” or another. The jurors' interactions reveal the other important element of the play: prejudice. This integral theme seems to be the driving force behind the initial role of “guilty.” However, the conflict between Jurors 3 and 8 also stimulates discussion about the reliability of the evidence presented. This leads to the next important element – ​​reasonable doubt – being recognized as a possibility by jurors. Without the conflict between Jurors 3 and 8, none of the other elements would have developed, resulting in the certain execution of a potentially innocent youth. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay From the beginning of the play, the audience can see that the jury room is divided into warring blocs between those who vouch for a guilty verdict and those who vouch for a not guilty verdict. This is mainly because the jury room is focused on the verdict; the discussion is shaped by the battles between jurors defending their initial verdict choices. Juror 8 is the most important character because he is the only juror to vote "not guilty" in the opening moments of the play, thus setting off the central conflict. Just as the 8th juror is a figurehead for the boys' innocence, the 3rd juror is a figurehead for the boys' guilt. The lack of compassion of the 3rd juror contrasts with the compassion of the 8th. Even if he claims “to have no personal feelings about this matter”, it is clear that he has a very personal motivation for wanting to condemn the young defendant: “I know this damn rotten kid, what he is like. What they do to you, how they kill you every day. It is obvious that the relationship between these two characters is turbulent and conflicted. Through the 8th Juror Rose, he highlights the power of the lone voice among the overwhelming majority. When asked to justify his vote of not guilty, the 8th juror does not put forward arguments in favor of the boy's innocence but rather emphasizes that "it is not easy for [him] to lift [ his] hand and send a boy to die without talking about it first.” The 3rd juror doesn't want to take the time to argue and is convinced that the case is "one of those open and shut things." The 8th juror thinks that perhaps “we owe the boy a few words” and this sentence opens the door to lively debates, particularly between the 3rd and the 8th juror. While the 8th juror is anxious to ensure the defendant gets a fair trial and the jury carefully considers the details, the 3rd juror is impatient and prefers to “stop wasting time.” Several key moments illustrate the nature of the relationship between the 3rd and 8th jurors. In one, the tension ends in a dramatic sequence in which the 3rd and 8th jurors reenact the stabbing and the 3rd juror stabs as the blade stops about an inch from the 8th juror's chest. This moment characterizes the personalities as well as their interactions, since the 3rd juror is generally more aggressive both physically and mentally, while the 8th remains firm in his beliefs and opinions, makingdemonstration of tolerance and compassion towards others. Without these two characters, there would be no exploration of juror bias, as their conflicted relationship serves to reveal the personalities of the other jurors and potentially show the audience why they vote the way they do. However, although the relationship between the two is an integral part of the play, the prejudices are just as important in the unfolding narrative of the drama within the play. Prejudice is observed on several levels throughout the play; the most obvious is racial. Although the race of the accused is never revealed, the audience understands that the boy is something of a minority, as he is often referred to as "one of them." Looking at bias in a broader sense, it is clear that many jurors enter the jury room with preconceived notions and irrational ideas. From the first and second votes of the play, the audience is exposed quite openly to the prejudices of Juror 3 and Juror 10; “This child is a dangerous killer, it shows... these are the children, as they are today.” The 7th juror is another who prejudges the boy based on his background and previous experiences: “Look at his file, he was in juvenile court.” The 10th juror also openly asserts his prejudices against the boy: "These people are born to lie, they are like that and no intelligent man will tell me otherwise." The 4th juror shares the same beliefs: "This boy, let's say he is the product of a dirty neighborhood and a broken home... children from slums are potential threats to society." Juror 10 thinks "those" people are "wild animals" and this case represents an opportunity to get one before "his kind gets us." “I've lived among them all my life, you can't believe a word they say...they are born liars. Juror 3's prejudices and emotional baggage become very prominent when he accuses the other jurors of having "bleeding hearts "all over the floor about slum children and injustice" and warns that "he must burn.” You let it slip through our fingers. He said he would gladly “action” the young accused. The other jurors have less prejudices. Juror 5, from a difficult background, is offended because he believes that there is prejudice against him because of his education. Juror 11 may also feel offended: “I can understand that kind of feeling,” he says, suggesting that he too has experienced prejudice in the past. And even though earlier in the play he "had no personal feelings about the case," Juror 8 accuses Juror 3: "You want to see this boy die because you personally want to, not because of the facts. You are a sadist. The different types of prejudice and their reactions demonstrate that prejudice is an integral part of the theme and seems to be the driving force behind the initial role of "guilty"; However, the conflict between the jurors stimulates discussion about the reliability of the evidence presented, so reasonable doubt then comes into play as another theme. The public never knows for sure whether the accused is guilty or innocent. Even though much of the evidence is questioned and manipulated by the 8th juror, at the end of the case there remains a huge amount of evidence accumulated against the defendant. However, it is always "beyond a reasonable doubt" that jurors must find the accused guilty in order to convict him, and they all eventually conclude that they have at least a doubt. From the first scene of the play, the judge says: "if there is reasonable doubt, then you must give me a verdict of 'not guilty,' but if there is no reasonable doubt, you must find the accused guilty. The 8th juror is.