Analysis of The Syntactical Structure in Twelve Angry Men

In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the jury room serves an essential purpose towards the narrative and syntactical structure of the play. The appeals to emotion, logic, and ethics are deeply rooted within the confines of the courthouse. The major philosophical ideologies are brought about through each juror’s respective perceptions. Rose emphasizes certain literary aspects when presenting the alignment of the jury. The discussions and debates make particular concepts either feel supported or isolated. This complexity brings humanity to each juror’s viewpoint.

Due to the intense nature of the case, a young African American man is charged with his father’s death, the crowd quickly becomes combatant as the eighth juror questions the motives of his cohorts. Initially, the eighth juror was the sole defender of reasonable uncertainty, but through his logical tactics, he gradually persuades others. For instance, after he delivers an argument about why he cannot morally vote guilty without further discussion, the ninth juror quickly comes to his support. This exacerbates the manipulative strategy employed by not only the eighth juror, but also Rose. Following the idea that the eighth juror was originally isolated within his mindset, he gains a natural sympathy from the audience because of his relatability. Through this, Rose can implicate his ideals with the intention of garnering subconscious backing. This is why the eighth juror is more of an embodiment of Rose’s social and political viewpoints, rather than a blanket character. In particular, when arguing about the defendant's silence, the eighth juror posits, “Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn’t have to open his mouth. That’s in the Constitution. You’ve heard of it”. This argument is structured in a deliberate logical manner, and seemingly well thought out, which fits the idea that it was extensively organized to match a political philosophy. The most significant portion of his claim is his mentioning of the Constitution followed by an immediate intellectual hindrance to his opponent’s assertion. The second juror is left completely flustered after his failed attempt to persuade the eighth juror, stating that “Well, sure I’ve heard of it. I know what it is. I -what I meant- well, the man is guilty. I mean, somebody saw him do it. [He looks around helplessly]” This difference in syntactical arrangement precisely furthers the concept of Rose’s calculated approach to his morality. The contrast increases the inclination to align with the eighth’s juror’s perspective. Therefore, Twelve Angry Men manipulates viewpoints into a more apparent right and wrong.

The third juror is a representation of prejudice, bias, acting on emotion, and is the opposite of the eighth juror. Rose employs him as a tool for any such counterarguments that could be brought up against his reasoning. As an example, the third juror proclaims, “ How do you know What- were you in the room when the father was killed”. This logic is instantly refuted by the fifth juror explaining that none of the jurors were present at the crime scene. This is a critical distinction from a similar circumstance earlier in the play where the eighth juror shuts down an argument confidently, but the third juror cannot because of the evident doubt he has when delivering his main points. This hesitation is capitalized on by his adversaries because of the quick-paced story, they are framed in a more intellectual manner and rapidly counter any illogical discussion. Rose constructs logic and emotion to be diametrically opposed from each other and they have a combatant relationship throughout Twelve Angry Men, that apexes at the finale. The third juror becomes the last bastion of certain guilt, which results with be berated by his peers. He eventually boils over with rage causing him to detail his connection with his son, expressing, “I don’t care what kind of man that was. It was his father. That goddamn rotten kid. I know him. What they’re like. What they do to you. How they kill you. My God, don’t you see? How come I’m the only one that sees?” This displays the emotional bias prevalent in his decision making over the course of the narrative. The eighth juror swiftly reminds him of his true purpose within that courtroom, to seek a unanimous and absolute verdict of a young man’s fate. This raises the issue of allowing personal background to interfere with judgment, especially when death is a consequence. Rose forms the play to balance between averse outlooks but arranging for a logical argument to be seen as more morally correct in regards to the legal system. This is why Rose syntactically pinpoints emotion as the antithesis of logic, one being precise and clear, while one is cloudy and fraught.

Twelve Angry Men portrays a scenario where the border between guilt and innocence is at best murky. Rose clouds the situation with various viewpoints before he can make a singular perspective ethically clear. This encapsulates the underlying themes of prejudice within the play. The third juror and the eighth juror represent bias and level-headedness respectively, which Rose uses to manipulate his audience’s inclination towards his viewpoint. The syntactical structure of which Rose uses in Twelve Angry Men stands to be a unique take on the American legal system.

References

• Lumet, Sidney, and Reginald Rose. Twelve Angry Men. Los Angeles: Orion-Nova Twelve Angry Men, 1957.