Legal Realism: 12 Angry Men

By. Kevin Kwon

In legal dramas, it is common to see how the legal system process is exaggerated or even over-simplified. On the other hand, there are dramas such as 12 Angry Men that show a correct representation of how the American judicial system operates. Reginald Rose, the author of 12 Angry Men wrote this play including detailed scenarios that represent the actual judicial system in America. Rose uses terms and ideas such as reasonable doubt, prejudice and burden of proof to create a realistic environment in 12 Angry Men and uses these terms to not only inform the audience but also make the play more dramatic. 

One of the detailed parts that Rose wrote in 12 Angry Men, is the concept of reasonable doubt. According to Investopedia, “Reasonable doubt is insufficient evidence that prevents a judge or jury from convicting a defendant of a crime,” which means that a jury or judge cannot assume that the defendant has been convicted of a crime without solid evidence (Liberto). We can see the reasonable doubt from Juror 8, who said “It’s not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first” (Rose 14). This shows how Juror 8 is serious about his role as a juror. Rose shows more great examples as the play goes on. Rose includes parts where Juror 8 questions the accuracy of the eyewitness testimony, the rarity of the knife used in the crime scene, and the logic of the murder. Rose shows a strong understanding of what reasonable doubt is and its application in the story. Rose uses this device to make the audience focus on the play by building suspension between the judges. 

Rose also explores how prejudice can affect the judicial process. Rose planted specific judges that have prejudice and strong characters that make the audience focus on the play. Rose implies bias and how different backgrounds impact the juror’s thinking process. Juror 10, for instance, had said “You know how these people lie. It’s born in them” (Rose 36). This statement shows how Juror 10’s prejudice is blocking judgment, leading to assumptions based on stereotypes rather than evidence. Juror 10 doesn’t engage deeply with the evidence instead, he relies on his assumptions and emotions to justify his vote. Rose contrasts this with Juror 8. His presence amplifies the importance of justice. Juror 8th values fairness compared to Juror 10 who makes irrational decisions based on prejudice. Rose’s approach to prejudice creates an environment for the readers to concentrate on the piece. Rose created characters that feel as if they exist in real life. By addressing prejudice so directly, Rose critiques the social inequality of people and the responsibility of the jurors, as if it is an allegory. 

Lastly, Rose highlights the burden of proof. In the play, Juror 8 constantly reminds the rest of the jurors that “the burden of proof is on the prosecution,” which is a principle that ensures defendants are innocent until proven guilty (Rose 19). This is the main point because the jurors cannot assume that the boy had committed the crime. Rose applies this to demonstrate to the readers how the burden of proof denies individuals from hasty and unfounded judgements. Through this, Rose informs the audience about legal standards and the usage of the principle to help the play as the jurors uncover the truth.

To sum it up, in 12 Angry Men,  Reginald Rose effectively uses key legal concepts such as reasonable doubt, prejudice, and burden of proof to illustrate a realistic representation of the American judicial system. Through characters like Juror 8 and Juror 10, Rose not only explains the legal terms but also shows the tension that happens during the process. By adding issues like prejudice, Rose emphasizes that the judicial process is not just a simple matter where people just say yes or no. Overall, 12 Angry Men represents both a powerful critique of the judicial system and a writing piece that makes the readers reflect on moral rights and justice. 

Works Cited

Rose, Reginald 12 Angry Men 1957

Liberto, Daniel. “Reasonable Doubt: Definition, How to Prove, and 3 Burdens.” Investopedia, Investopedia, 

www.investopedia.com/terms/r/reasonable-doubt.asp#:~:text=Key%20Takeaways,person%20should%20not%20be%20convicted. Accessed 15 Nov. 2024.