One must understand commonality before they can comprehend why it is at the heart of righteous judgment. It is perceived as the sense of ruling that is right or just based on logic. Power conversely can be misused due to one’s own personal bias and prejudices. This is displayed in order to orientate the time period and the underlying social influences. Argument can however counteract the misguided force of bigotry as an agent of truth which is prevents the abuse of supremacy.
Rose adapts his characters to these ideals by having them display the concept of active citizenship though there are some exceptions. Through hose conceptions a clear perceptiveness of the correct use of power and its protruding factor of rationality will be obtained. Rose portrays rationality as the leading factor in the correct use of influence by indicating subjectivity as its main adversary. The two impressions are constantly locking horns and this is embodied by the Jurors themselves. There are characters that come from an array of professions which indicate the diversity of the group.
Juror 8 and 4 are men considered to be factually based and this is made evident by their constant questioning based on logic such as “l would consider the knife to be tutee strong evidence” and “lets stick to the facts”. What they both share is a calm domineer, in particularly Juror 4 who doesn’t take off his jacket and indicates that by saying “No, I do not sweat”. This rationale and attention to detail is exhibited when Juror 8 takes the time to examine the Woolworth building when Juror 12 moves right along.
However this is opposed by Juror 10 who frequently talks over others and racially discriminating when he describes what he considers to be ‘those people”. Also the personal favoritism by Juror 7 who wants to end swiftly battles rationality as he has “tickets burning holes” in his pocket. This is put on view with the statement “you could talk for 100 hours and it wouldn’t change my mind suggesting a close mind to the matter. The author indicates the two sides but deliberately embraces rationality as the leading role for which just employment of command.
Bias is considered to be subjective and can lead to an exploitation of power. Rose undertakes this in two main forms that of racial innuendo and the other focused personal experience related prejudice considered the lesser of two evils. Racism is prevalent within the play with excessive rants made by Juror 10 in a distasteful manner if going as far as to describe the people with the same ethnicity as the boy on trail as “born liars” and “you can’t trust a word they say”.
This is the most blatant form of racism displayed although a thinly veiled outburst of” they come over here and try to tell us what to do” by Juror 7 towards Juror 11 after being questioned about his knowledge of the term “reasonTABLE doubt?’ specifies his bigotry. Rose then showcases another form of bias, that of an intimate manner through Juror 3. It is popular to consider Juror 3 as the main antagonist however to the contrary he is the most real and relaTABLE of Rose’s creations.
A fragile man ho wears a self assured mask living the American dream (being his own boss), had been hit with the harsh realities of life. After having a fight, his son left and he hadn’t “seen him in 2 years”. The irony is undeniTABLE when Juror 3 insinuates partisanship made Juror 5 when asking sarcastically whether it was “love your underrepresented brother week”. He is quite content to accuse others of bias but struggles to comprehend his own. His hubris and exciTABLE nature suggest his burning passion to not the accused “slip through their fingers”.
This magnitude of “prejudice always obscures the truth” and can dead mistreatment of control. Heated logical debate can deny the corruption of power. Rose explores this by having Juror 1 and 4 analysis and question the facts understanding that they “do not have to take sides” but rather considerate the evidence in detail. Just as weather reached blistering heats of “the hottest day of the year” so did the tension in the room. Each man pushed to their breaking point with belligerent yelling and intimidation as the somewhat violent foundations of the actually country are presented.
The washroom provides a sanctuary away from the bitter arguments where harassers can express themselves more freely despite the fact that time is short lived there. The burning rays of the sun and the non working fan are contributing factors to the unreasonTABLE attitudes of many men. This although is resolved in an unorthodox manner by Rose. The use of a storm, which usually symbolizes anarchy and panic, crystallites the composure of the room. With each drop of water logic is restored and the argument becomes more factual based and less aggressive.
Having this sudden calm allowed many of the men to think straighter and allowed their command to be appropriately utilized. The just use of rule cannot be made by those who let things pass by. Juror 7 a man lost in affluence, who is too caught up in the fruits of prosperity struggles to comprehend the enormity of his decision. To some extent The notion of active citizenship is explore by Rose to display Juror 7 and ass’s short comings as a populace of the general public. When seeking the truth one must put their view forward even against ridicule much like Juror 8 who just wanted to “talk about it’.
The most pivotal display however is made by Juror 11 an immigrant watchmaker who seems to be more knowledgeTABLE about the democratic system then the other Jurors. In a time where fear of communism and accusations of disloyalty or treason without evidence otherwise known as McCarthy were widespread, it took courage for that information to be expressed by Juror 11 . Many of the Jurors would have had preconceptions about him simply because of his ethnicity however he disproves the negatives by partaking actively as a member of society.
The notion of active citizenship is a platform in which rational leadership emerges. The use of power is defined by the characters are by their own doing. Even though there are moments when peer pressure is taken into consideration verbal these choices are made by the individual. Rose crystallizes each character by even using specific stereotypes such as Juror 5 being TABLE to use a knife because he “grew up in the slums” and Juror 6 being considered not very intelligent as his “boss does the supposing’.
The audience however are separated and distance from the characters as names are not given out to emit any personal response thus judgment can only be made on each characters spoken word and action. This alienation of the characters allows us the readers to analysis and dissect each character while trying to avoid creating personal ties. Through this one can define those who are rational in a place of power and who are considering to be making the right decisions.
Power abuse is based upon many contributing factors, but specifically correct leadership is made by avoiding subjectivity and apply of the evidence presented. Rose displays this through his many implanted techniques and incoherence of characters to display all walks of life at the time period. This motion is not distorted as the audience is intentionally detached from them. His expression relates to the main body of the text as he depicts individuals the use of the power they have been presented.
