Posted: December 20th, 2014

Write a literary analysis in which you identify how the author reveals his, both pessimistic and optimistic belief (world view) about human nature and the way the world is and could be

Write a literary analysis in which you identify how the author reveals his, both pessimistic and optimistic belief (world view) about human nature and the way the world is and could be

Order Description

Basically, this essay should be related to the book “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose.
After reading the book, this essay should reveal how the author, in the book, reveals his world view about human nature and the world.
This essay should include a minimum of 5 paragraphs, a title, and works cited page.

Hae Na Lee
Professor Manill
English 102
6 November 2014
To Reflect Ourselves
U.S. jury system has evolved over the course of hundreds of years and also endured numerous changes in our society. Despite such changes the system has survived and still contains the core beliefs of checks and balance, as well as power to the people. Since the system provides opportunities to the U.S. citizens to speak up their voices in the court, it has been considered to be very powerful and democratic tool in the U.S court. However, since jurors are randomly chosen and their personal decisions directly affect a trial, the difference in perspectives might prevent them from making a reasonable and just decision. The randomly chosen citizens come from different backgrounds, have different religions, and have different life struggles. Even though their goal is to work together by focusing on evidence and logic and also providing the best unbiased decision, the difference in their backgrounds, personality, and morals makes it difficult for the jurors to exclude their emotions and only provide rational and unbiased opinions. In “Twelve Angry Men”, Reginald Rose concentrates on American justice system to reveal how situation is judged differently by people who see the world with their own lens and motives.
First, some biased jurors fail to see the death trial fairly and understand other jurors’ perspectives. In the play, the third juror and the tenth juror illustrates how their bias and crude judgments disables them from making legitimate decisions. For instance, even before hearing to other jurors reasoning, tenth juror says, “I’ve lived among [the slum] all my life. You can’t believe a word they say. I mean, they’re born liars” (13). Even before absorbing all the available information, he is already determined to stand for a verdict of guilty because the kid on trial is living in slum. Disregarding the importance of the trial and ignoring the fact that his decision will affect the outcome of the boy’s life, he hastily and thoughtlessly comes to a conclusion solely based on his negative perspective of the slum and the people living in it. The third juror, who is the last one to accept the verdict of not guilty, also bases his determination on his bias against kids rather than on logical and critical thinking. Because of the conflict that he has with his own kid, he never tries to contemplate other jurors’ opinions. During discussion, he says irately, “It’s the kids, the way they are nowadays. Angry! Hostile! You can’t do a damn thing with them. Just the way they talk to you…” (17).  Because he grounds his opinion on his family struggle, the third juror fails to use reasons and logic in order to come to the best conclusion for the boy’s actions. Although the flaws in evidence are discovered and he has reasonable doubt, his bias refuses to admit any compelling arguments. Tenth juror and third juror are both close-minded defending their biases against any fair point simply due to the fact that it goes against their own views.
Compared with tenth juror and third juror, some of the jurors are too timid and easily intimidated. This characteristic prevents the jurors to explain their views reasonably and confidently. One example is the second juror. Having no backbone, his opinion just follows the flow of others’ arguments. When he is expected to explain his opinion, he hesitantly says, “Well, it’s hard to put into words. I just think he’s guilty. I thought it was obvious from the word go. I mean nobody proved otherwise” (14). When explaining his decision, he fails to prove how he reaches the judgment. He is too shy and lacks self-confidence to speak up his mind against the other jurors. Throughout the act, rather than trying to persuade others or show his determination towards the suspect, he continues to adjust his view according to others’ opinions. Fifth juror is another character who is easily intimidated and too afraid to speak up his voice. He hesitates to defend the suspect on trial because of his own background of growing up in the slums. When tenth juror talks down on people living in the slum, fifth juror is irritated and says, “I’ve lived in a slum all my life. I nurse that trash in Harlem Hospital six nights a week…I used to play in a backyard that was filled with garbage. Maybe it still smells on me” (18). The fifth juror allows the feeling of inferiority get to him and he fails to effectively participate in the trial until the latter stages.
In contrast to the timid and shy people, there are also people who are over confident and even selfish. Rose reveals this aspect of the world using the seventh juror. From the beginning of the play, seventh juror is rushed and his motivation to participate in the discussion comes solely from excitement to go the baseball game after he finishes the discussion as soon as possible.  He sees the evidence of trial only on the surface level and does not have any inspiration to analyze other jurors’ argument for the hopes of bringing the suspect to justice. In addition, when he realizes that the discussion would not end as quickly as he expected, he gives up his vote for guilty and says, “Listen, I’ll tell you something. I’m a little sick of this whole thing already. All this yakkin’s getting us nowhere so I’m going to break it up here. I’m changing my vote to “not guilty”” (62). He changes his decision simply because of his desire to go to the baseball game rather than reasonable doubt. This shows how irresponsible he is on his duty, as a juror in the court, and how his opinion lacks seriousness and logic, which are essential to judge one’s life.
Lastly, eighth juror represents a more reliable and responsible character, which makes his decision based on reasonable doubt and tries to analyze the evidence with respect to other jurors’ opinions. He is passionate, respectful, just, and reasonable throughout the play. From the beginning, he does not hesitate to explain his opinion, which is different from all the other jurors. For instance, in response to the difference in ideas, he states, “I’m not trying to change your mind. It’s just that we’re talking about somebody’s life here. I mean, we can’t decide in five minutes. Suppose we’re wrong?” (12). He knows how careful and thoughtful he has to be in order to make a decision regarding one’s life. Therefore, he scrutinizes all the evidence and even plays the crime scene in his head backwards. His passion and motivation to conduct his responsibility as a juror is clearly illustrated by his review on the details of the trial and others’ opinions. Furthermore, he realizes that some jurors are biased against the suspect. For instance, when the tenth juror expresses his opinion based on strong prejudice against the suspect from the slum, the eighth juror responds, “You don’t believe the boy. How come you believe the woman? She’s one of them, too, isn’t she?” (16).  To make a unanimous decision based on just and thoughtful reasoning, the eighth juror carefully listens to the discussion and logically analyzes evidence in detail and identifies the flaws in evidence as well as the opinions of other jurors. Through the protagonist of the play, the eighth juror, Rose portrays the optimistic view of human nature that people are fully capable and willing to help others in need of help and also use critical thinking and reasoning in order to solve a problem, despite the fact that this might not be the easiest and quickest path.
Through “Twelve Angry Men”, Rose displays the tendencies and nature of most people in this society. Some have strong biased beliefs, which prevent them from being reasonable and justified. Others lack self-confidence, which disables them from being decisive and stand firm of their own beliefs. There are also people who are only focused on their self-interest and can be too careless about anybody else’s problems. On the other hand, there are people that understand responsibility and come with just decision based on thoughtful reasoning and cooperation. It’s a cold-hearted truth that there exists more pessimism than optimism in this world. It is also sadly true that human nature consists of self-interest and selfishness. However, people must learn to overcome these temptations and act logically as well as responsibly in order to improve and better the world that we are living in.

ks Cited
Rose, Reginald. Twelve Angry Men. New York: Penguin, 2006. Print.

    
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂