In a hot 1950s jury room overlooking a city's financial district, tensions arise as 12 jurors must decide the verdict of a boy accused of murdering his father. In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men, the balance between the social classes present in the courtroom and the social class of the accused determines the final verdict rendered by the jury. Coming from different ethnic and social backgrounds, the men struggle to achieve consensus on power. Their interactions in the jury room demonstrate how different social classes treat each other on a daily basis. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay In the realm of the courtroom, jurors are “cut off from the world” and the substance of their daily lives” (Munyan 1997 ). The trial forces them to create their own world in which they use their experiences to solve the case. “Experiences, perceptions, and attitudes accumulated over a dozen disparate lives [rush into] a small number of shared hours” (Munyan 1997). The jurors come from different backgrounds and their decisions throughout the play reflect the social classes in which they grew up. Juror 8, who implies that he endured life in the slums when he was younger, has sympathy for the defendant because he recognizes how negatively the rich treat the poor. “This boy has been beaten all his life. Do you know why slum kids are like that? Because we hit them on the head once a day, every day” (Rose, 5 years old). Perhaps speaking from personal experience, Juror 8 gives an example of what made the boy be the way he is and suggests that the other jurors owe him a few words. The boy grew up in an environment surrounded by violence and crime, which influenced his criminal record. Representing the camp of the rich and privileged, Juror 10 refutes his statement. “We owe him nothing” (Rose 5). The rich never suffer what the poor suffer and, in turn, cannot understand the difficulties of living a lower class life. Juror 10 then said: “Do you know how much this trial cost? He’s lucky to have had it” (Rose 5). This statement reflects the view that the upper class has on the lower class: the rich are superior to the poor. The rich don't believe this boy even deserves to spend money on a trial just because he comes from the slums; the wealthiest believe him guilty whatever happens. This young man's life hangs in the balance and jurors are determining whether he will live or die. However, for upper-class men, the line between work and play becomes blurred as they focus more on their frivolous privileges than on the boy's bottom line. The poor see the urgency and importance of the situation while the rich, eager to get the trial over with, callously declare the boy guilty. Juror 7's first sentence: “It had better be quick. I have tickets for Seven Years of Thinking Tonight,” suggests his lack of interest or care for the accused because he views the poor as inferior and unimportant (Rose 3). When Juror 8 asks the others if they still believe the boy lied about his alibi, Juror 7 responds, "We could stay here all night," once again evoking his negative feelings toward the boy (Rose 10 ). His attitude reflects his dissatisfaction with jury duty interfering with his plans, but he projects his negativity onto the boy on trial. Attempting to make Juror 7 aware of the important situation,Juror 9 then responds by saying, “It’s only one night. A man can die” (Rose 10). Juror 9 thinks more deeply about the issue at hand and knows what the issues are. He treats this case not simply as one to get rid of, but as a complicated battle with real people that could result in more social dysfunction and more death than just an isolated murder. Jurors who clearly grew up privileged speak about poor people and life in the slums in a way that critically illuminates the way the rich live and act. They associate all lower class people with crime, disobedience and violence. The boy's lower-class background puts him at a disadvantage not only because the upper class generalizes about him, but also because they look down on him as a person. As Juror 8 points out: “Somehow I felt like defense counsel never really did a thorough cross-examination. I mean he was appointed by the court to defend the boy. He hardly seemed interested” (Rose 8). The man who was supposed to fight for the boy to live and be free seemed indifferent to this matter, showing that he considered it unimportant. In effect, the defense attorney did not take the case seriously simply because the accused did not meet specific social standards. Juror 10, described as “a judge without rights,” declares: “A child kills his father. Bing! Like that. Well, that's the element. They let the kids run wild. Maybe it serves them well” (Rose 1 & 3). He implies that these crimes happen all the time in the slums, because that's how the slums work. However, the working-class jurors speak of the boy without consciously referring to his class status. Juror 9 acts as the voice of reason in this case, as he believes in not generalizing about a person based on their socio-economic background. “Since when has dishonesty been a group characteristic? You do not have a monopoly on the truth” (Rose 5). The choice of the word monopoly is specific to the character addressed by Juror 9. Because he speaks to Juror 10, the one who has known the advantages of money all his life, Juror 9 knows that the rich man will recognize the power that accompanies monopolization. Juror 9 then said: “What this man is saying is very dangerous” (Rose 5). If the rest of the world adopts the idea that the rich have control over what is true and accepted and that people from the lower classes are unimportant and untrustworthy, the world will be dangerous for anyone who opposes the upper classes. After presenting a convincing argument demonstrating the dishonesty of the poor, Juror 10 attempts to validate the testimony of a woman, who indicates that she saw the murder occur. In response, Juror 8 asks him, “How come you believed her?” She's part of it too, isn't she? (Pink 7). Juror 10 realizes his mistake in contradicting his earlier statement which stereotyped all poor people as dishonest. Juror 3 is a representative of those who blame the poor for the downfall of society. When he first mentions his son, he says bitterly: “I have a child” (Rose 8). He tells the others that he beat his own son into becoming a man. His son left home and Juror 3 has not seen him since. His attitude suggests that he sees his son in the accused boy and is pouring his heart out on him. He also expresses his anger at the poor and life in the slums, as he believes these forces caused his son to leave and become the way he is. Juror 4 attacks the working classes and. 2016