true in Rose'sTwelve Angry Men as the jurors held in the locked room become uncomfortable when Juror No. 8 causes them to become obligated to explain their initial decisions of "guilty." However, thanks to this one open-minded man who is not comfortable with such rash judgment without deliberation and discussion, the other jurors examine their consciences along with the evidence and objectify their reasoning so that they arrive at a decision without bias and assumptions. 

With an assortment of men of differing socio-economic backgrounds and personalities, there are certain biases that surface during the deliberations of the jury; moreover, these biases cloud the thinking of those who possess them. For instance, Juror No. 3 acts as an impediment to justice because he is sadistic and extremely narrow-minded. Furthermore, he is accustomed to imposing his views on others. First of all, he wants to vote right away; then, he reports the "facts" to the others as he perceives them. When Juror No. 8 wants to have the switch-blade brought into the juror's room for them to examine again, Juror No. 3 counters,

No. 3 We all know what it looks like, I don't see why we have to look at it again.

It is not until all the others have become convinced that there is "a reasonable doubt" that No. 3 is alone in his obstinacy until he angrily concurs with them.

Another juror who interferes with objectivity and re-examination of the evidence is Juror No. 10, whose bigotry clouds his judgment; he believes the boy is guilty of killing his father because he is part of "the element. They let the kids run wild."

No. 10 ...[they] --don't need any real big reason to kill someone either. You know, they get drunk, and bang, someone's lying in the gutter. Nobody's blaming them. That's how they are...Violent!

But, because he resorts to his prejudices as answers, the other jurors eventually reject his attempts at credibility by rising from their seats and going to the window.

After the emotional outbursts of Jurors No. 3 and No. 10, Juror No. 4 seeks to restore rationality to the deliberations:  

No. 4 I don't see why we have to behave like children here.

Having exerted his rationality to the deliberations, No. 4 enters the discussion more. He states his belief that the boy is guilty because there was an eye witness. However, No. 8 points out that the witness was not wearing her glasses at the time that she claimed to have seen the boy stabbing his father. As doubt is raised in his mind, No. 4 quietly announces that he is no longer convinced that the boy is guilty.

Clearly, it is because of the willingness of No. 8 to more closely examine the facts of the case and the testimony, along with his sense of doubt, that the other men, too, reconsider the testimony and the facts of the trial. In addition, because of the bravery of No. 8, others are encouraged to voice their opinions, thus engaging the jurors, who were at first reluctant to voice their observations and deductions. It is this interchange of information that eventually leads the jurors to the decision that there is "reasonable doubt" and they cannot hand the foreman a charge of guilty. 

Reginald Rose's script for Twelve Angry Men strengthens our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the U.S. jury system by illuminating the flaws in human nature that can lead to a miscarriage of justice while also offering hope for the emergence of jurors of principle who will summon the moral courage necessary to go against a majority seeking to decide in a different direction the fate of the accused. 

Rose's script was well-written, depicting the efforts of twelve individuals tasked with determining the guilt or innocence of a young Hispanic man on trial for murdering his own father. It is instructive that Rose was inspired to write his script by his own experiences as a juror in a criminal trial. As he was quoted as saying from a 1997 interview with regard to his participation on a jury:

''It knocked me out. I was overwhelmed. I was on a jury for a manslaughter case, and we got into this terrific, furious, eight-hour argument in the jury room. I was writing one-hour dramas for 'Studio One' then and I thought, wow, what a setting for a drama.''

While Rose insisted that his script for Twelve Angry Men was entirely fictitious, it almost certainly reflects some of the biases and human dynamics he observed during his duty as a juror. Whether the racial and socioeconomic factors at play in his fictitious jury room mirrored any similar phenomena in the real-life jury on which he served, however, we will likely never know, Rose having passed away in 2002.

Rose's script is particularly useful in terms of studying the U.S. jury system for the dangers it depicts of allowing unchallenged prejudices to prevail. Juror 8 in Twelve Angry Men is the model of informed rational thought who succeeds in convincing the other 11 jurors to change their votes and to acquit the defendant. In order to do so, he must confront those prejudices, especially the biases advanced by Jurors 3 and 10, the first an angry, hostile man whose bitterness is ultimately ascribed to his own dysfunctional relationship with his son and the latter a simple-minded racist whose bias against the Hispanic defendant has entirely skewed his judgement. If there is a flaw to Rose's "jury," it might be Juror 8, the wise, level-headed nonconformist. At the beginning of his script, Rose provides detailed descriptions for each of the 12 jurors, and the description for Juror 8 says it all:

"A quiet, thoughtful, gentle man. A man who sees all sides of every question and constantly seeks the truth. A man of strength tempered with compassion. Above all, a man who wants justice to be done and will fight to see that it is."

Contrast this with his description for Juror 3, the angry, resentful one whose demeanor intimidates the weaker jurors:

"A very strong, very forceful, extremely opinionated man within whom can be detected a streak of sadism. A humorless man who is intolerant of opinions other than his own and accustomed to forcing his wishes and views upon others."

Now, let's look at Rose's description for Juror 5:

"A naïve, very frightened young man who takes his obligations in this case very seriously, but who finds it difficult to speak up when his elders have the floor."

Contrasting a strong, forceful, extremely opinionated juror with a "naive, very frightened young man . . . who finds it difficult to speak up when his elders have the floor" provides Rose's script a very useful mechanism for depicting the actual dynamics that can occur in any gathering, including a jury. A potential weakness in the real-life jury system is the risk of weak-minded jurors being adversely influenced by stronger-willed ones. As Twelve Angry Men progresses, the ability of Juror 3 to intimidate the others begins to disappear. The human dynamics that could have ended in a miscarriage of justice were eventually overtaken by the increasing willingness of other jurors to either come around to Juror 8's perspective on the concept of reasonable doubt, or to switch their decision to "innocent" for the primary purpose of ending the proceedings so that they can move on to other things (recall, for example,  Juror 7's admonition at the beginning of the jury deliberations that "This better be fast. I’ve got tickets to The Seven Year Itch tonight"). [Note: The Seven Year Itch was an actual play, later adapted for film, that was very popular at the time]

Twelve Angry Men depicts both the strengths and weaknesses of the U.S. jury system in its depiction of the myriad personalities, temperaments, and levels of education that are represented in real-life scenarios. The deliberative process at the heart of the play represents the strengths; the prejudices and misguided priorities that are reflected in some of the jurors represent the weaknesses.

I think one of the most important ways in which the author of this excellent play cleverly restores the audience's faith in the jury system is by deliberately starting off the play with reference to the many criticisms that there are of the jury system. Note how, for some of the jury members, once they have to decide the fate of this young man some of them just want to get it over and done with as soon as possible. This is most crassly seen in No. 7:

Right. This better be fast. I've got tickets to The Seven Year Itch tonight. I must be the only guy in the whole world who hasn't seen it yet.

Thus Rose raises the problem with jury systems: the members might rush to a conclusion because of the inconvenience that it is to them and that they would not care about the fate of another fellow being.

However, as the play progresses, the jury moves from being 11 in favor of the accused being guilty to all accepting that each piece of evidence is doubtful and thus the accused cannot be, beyond all reasonable doubt, considered to be guilty. Each of the jury members is shown to be able to bring their own personal knowledge and experience to bear in the case and to thus create cause for reasonable doubt. Thus, having started off with such a negative impression of the jury and their ability to administer justice, Rose is able to turn it around and show a jury that has achieved justice through careful examination of the evidence provided. In spite of our fears, thanks to No. 8, the jury members have shown themselves to be obedient to the Judge's words at the beginning of the play:

I urge you to deliberate honestly and thoughtfully. You are faced with a grave responsibility.