12 Angry Men Part 3

There are many themes shown throughout the play, 12 Angry Men. One theme that is shown throughout the whole play is the theme of opinion. Throughout the whole play you see 12 different opinions coming at each other. Each juror has a different opinion. Some of the jurors have a weak opinion and just go with what someone else is saying. Some have strong opinions that stand up for what they believe. Some speak up about it, some do not. Some opinions clash which causes arguments, but that makes the play interesting. In the beginning of the play, one person had an opinion and every juror agreed with that opinion except for one. That one juror that had a different opinion, stood up for what he believed. He tried to convince the other jurors and explain to them why he believed that. When he told his opinion, people disagreed and arguments started. Once jurors saw where he was coming from, they start throwing in ideas too that could back up his opinion. I think the opinion theme is the major theme of the play because the whole time, the jurors are just throwing out their opinions of the case. If there were no opinions, or some jurors did not have such a strong opinion, the play would be dull and boring. 

12 Angry Men Part 2

As I began to read on, I started to think about what would change if some elements in the book were different. I started to think about the jurors. Juror eight is the juror that stirred all the votes up and tried to pull the poll from guilty to not guilty. He brought in ideas, facts and conspiracies that had every juror questioning their vote. He succeeded in some way because some jurors did change their vote to not guilty after listening to him. If juror eight wasn't in the trial and instead it was a quiet man that didn't speak his mind, I guarantee you they would of made the verdict guilty, without any questions. I believe this because at first, every juror besides juror eight voted guilty. If juror eight was not in the story, I don't think it would have interested me because there would have been no argument. Juror eight stirs up the pot and makes the reader even question. I also began to think about if the 19 year old man that stood trial was black or white. If he was black and this was 50 years ago, he would of been convicted guilty without a question because race mattered back then and people targeted black people. But if he was black today, it would of been a fair trial, and race wouldn't of mattered. Another thing that would impact the entire story was if the father somehow survived the stabbing. If he survived, he could of stood up for himself at the trial and be able to tell everyone the truth about what happened. But if he survived I question myself if the jurors argument would be as interesting as it is now. Would the trial be taken as seriously as it is taken now? The last element that would change the story, is if all the jurors were women instead of men. I feel as though women would be more catty and sensitive about feelings instead of men. Some of the women wouldn't have as high of a temper as the men.