FREE ESSAY ON THE COURAGE TO STAND ALONE

THE COURAGE TO STAND ALONE

The Courage to Stand Alone
In the 1950's, Reginald Rose penned his masterpiece, 12 Angry Men. This play introduces
us to twelve men of various statures. All of these men are part of the jury who will
decide the fate of a young man, who has been accused of murdering his father. At first
glance of the testimonies of the witnesses in the trial, the reader, or audience, would
probably agree with the norm of the jury on the guilt of the young man. If it weren't for
one character in this play, juror No. 8, the deliberations of this trial would have been
non-existent. At the end of this story, another juror, No. 3, states his nearly
impenetrable opinion, nearly causing a hung jury. After reading or watching this play,
the audience has some insight into the fact that despite how unfavourable a persons
opinion may be, it is the courage to hold ones ground - sometimes with no other support
but from him/herself - that must be recognized as a virtue.
This story starts off in the courtroom with the jurors making their way to the
deliberation room to talk about and vote on the fate of the accused. A vote is cast to
see where they stand with one another on their opinions. The men have various reasons for
voting the ways they do. Take, for example, who No. 7 says, "This better be fast. I've
got tickets to The Seven Year Itch tonight" , or No. 2 who is "a meek, hesitant man who
finds it difficult to maintain any opinions of his own. Easily swayed and usually adopts
the opinion of the last person to whom he has spoken", and No. 3 whose son won't talk to
him anymore because of his father's bitterness against young people. Some of the other
men on the jury believe that "you can't believe a word [people from the slums] say", and
since the boy is from the slums, they don't believe his testimony. It is only juror No. 8
who came into the jurors room with a non-bias attitude and who left his personal baggage
at the door. He believes that "maybe we owe him a few words", but the others believe that
they "don't owe him a thing".
The evidence against the accused convinces all the jurors of the boys guilt, except for
juror No. 8. The evidence that has convinced the rest of the jurors soon gets analyzed by
juror No. 8, which causes the others think twice about their verdict. The reason why
juror No. 8 went into such detail about all of the evidence is because "[He] had a
peculiar feeling about this trial. Somehow [he] felt that the defense never really
conducted a thorough cross-examination. [He] mean[s], [the defense lawyer] was appointed
by the court to defend the boy. He hardly seemed interested. Too many questions were left
unasked." There were three pieces of evidence that the prosecution brought up, which each
on its own, could have probably convinced a jury of the boy's guilt: the obscure knife,
and the two witnesses: the old man , the neighbour downstairs, and the woman, the
neighbour from across the street. All of these key pieces of evidence were looked over in
the jurors room. Nobody but juror No. 8 saw the flaws with each. 
Take, for example, the rare switch-knife - which we find out to be not-so-rare - that the
boy had bought from a local corner store. "The storekeeper identified it and said it was
the only one of its kind he had in stock." This testimony had convinced eleven of the
jurors until juror No. 8 "swiftly flicks open the blade of a switch-knife and jams it
into the table next to the first one (knife). They are exactly alike." After this
incident, another juror sided with juror No. 8. 
Next, the old man's and the woman from across the street's testimonies gets put to their
tests. Like juror No. 3 said, "[T]he old man heard the kill yell, 'I'm gonna kill you.' A
second later he heard the father's body falling, and he saw the boy running out of the
house fifteen seconds after that." With the Jury Room's furniture, juror No. 8 reenacted
the scene that would had to have taken place if the old man were to be able to see all he
said he did. Juror No. 8 proved that the old man wouldn't have been able to move as
quickly as he said he did; thus, he wasn't telling the whole truth. The same went for the
woman across the street. Her testimony proved to be the extended truth as well. She said
that that she was unable to fall asleep that night and she had looked out the window from
her bed and saw that whole murder take place. This testimony seemed unshakable until
juror No. 6 said, "You know the woman who testified that she saw the killing wears
glasses." Then asked, "This woman wouldn't wear her eyeglasses to bed, would she?" This
statement radiates light on the fact that "[S]he testified that in the midst of her
tossing and turning she rolled over and looked casually out the window. The murder was
taking place as she looked out, and the lights went out a split second later. She
couldn't have had time to put on her glasses"..."I say that she only saw a blur," No. 8
said. These facts changed the most of the jurors verdicts to "not guilty". Near the end
of these alterations, it is only the stubborn and bitter juror No. 3 who stands alone.
He, too - in enmity - changes his mind to make the verdict a unanimous "Not Guilty".
This play shows it audience that although some of us have different and sometimes adverse
views, respect for other various opinions must be prominent. We can try to change the
views of others by informing them and by not domineering over them with our opinions. The
underlying theme of this play was at one time said by juror No. 9: "It takes a great deal
of courage to stand alone."