Hi, can I get some feedback please? I'd appreciate feedback in terms of paragraph development, i.e. how well the paragraph contents stick to its corresponding topic sentences. Thanks in advance!
Topic: The jurors are far too concerned with their own issues to find the truth of a young boy's guilt or innocence. To what extent do you agree?
The jurors in Reginald Rose's famous play, Twelve Angry Men, engage in countless conflicts discussing whether a boy is guilty or innocent for his father's death. In the core of all conflicts stand the individual jurors' opinions, some of them quite besmirched by their own issues such as experiences, priorities and interpretations of testimonies and evidences. Simultaneously, some jurors are utterly indifferent in fulfilling their duty as a jury, seemingly marring effective communication within the group. However, whilst some jurors' ability to make rational decisions is muddled by their obsessions with their own issues, the irrationality that arises ultimately allows thorough inspection of evidences. Also those who don't have their minds fixated on finding the truth help cool down the fiery atmosphere in the jury room with their light inputs.
The indifference of some jurors prevents effective communication and deliberation of the case. The American judicial system requires jurors to vote as a group, rather than putting values to the individual person's verdicts. However, those whose minds are somewhere else casually single themselves out of the jury by appearing indifferent to their duties. The typical epitome, Juror 7, prioritises a baseball game and consequently disallows communication within the group. From the beginning of the play Juror 7 demonstrates how he thinks the jury system is a "goddamn waste of time" and "better be fast", especially because he "has tickets to a ball game tonight." Throughout the play, Rose displays the growing consciousness of time Juror 7 has by stage instructions such as "looking at his watch" and "he looks up at his watch then up at the clock". This type of attitude muddles Juror 7's interpretation of all evidences and testimonies "Ran. Walked. What's the difference?" which also irritates others as they complain, "stop making smart remarks". Also, some jurors prioritise gloating about their own jobs and careers. As an illustration, on the surface Juror 12 looks like he is very attentive and fixated on finding the truth about the boy, but he often finds ways to divert the attention to how he "worked at an ad agency". Along with Juror 3, at one point he is "playing tic-tac-toe", breaking the flow of discussion about the woman's testimony about seeing the murder through an elevated train. This displays sheer inattentiveness as Juror 8 tries his best to quickly shift the agenda to the boy's trial much to his chagrin. It is worth noting, though, that all the jurors merely disregard the inputs of these apathetic jurors dispersed throughout the play. This is because these indifferent comments are not worthy to be discussed, unlike racist and biased comments which carry an aspect of "reasonable doubt". To sum up, these inattentive jurors remove themselves from the discussion, removing the dynamicity of the jury in finding the truth.
Furthermore involving personal issues such as family and age colour the Jurors' sense of judgement which then hijacks the notion of an absolute truth. Whilst the jurors are required to differentiate "facts from the fancy" as the judge requested, some create their own criteria of justice from their own personal issues, changing what the real truth is. For instance, juror 3, although respects the American judicial system and appears to be rational, is overly concerned with his relationship with his son, how he worked his "heart out" to raise his son who grew up to be a "rotten kid". While Juror 10 is blatantly unreasonable and biased, Juror 3 has his personal reasons in generalising youth as "Angry! Hostile!" However the easily unseen truth here is that even though Juror 3 thinks he is presenting himself as logical, he is subconsciously emotional. Consequently, he sees a different 'truth' of the trial; his adamant perspective is that the boy is a murderer, and even argues he is the "only one who sees" the truth. Moreover personal experiences such as Juror 5's life in slums, invent a new issue surrounding the boy's character instead of the murder itself. The fact is that his profound understanding of the disadvantages of kids who grew up in slums is irrelevant in deciding only whether or not a boy has killed his father. By admitting that "there is something personal" in this trial, Juror 5 is cumbering the jury's attempt to find the truth. Simultaneously, Juror 9 empathises with the old witness in order to doubt the old man's testimony. Rather than taking the testimonies as heard, Juror 9 challenges the truthfulness of the testimony because "facts may be colored by the personalities of the people who present them" as Juror 11 remarks. Because of this, whatever the truth is, the truth is seen from different perspectives as the jurors base their decisions on their own individualistic sense of judgements rather than finding out the real truth of the case.
However, the arguments which are triggered by personal concerns ultimately provide space for thorough discussions, and the jocose inputs of indifferent jurors help to cool down the heat of conflicts. As well as finding the truth, "if there is a reasonable doubt" the jurors have to closely scrutinize facts and evidences. This reasonable doubt becomes the centre of discussion when different perspectives of truth are provided by some jurors based on their own personal experiences. For instance, the suspicion of the old man's testimony introduced by Juror 9 as he understands the old man's senility somewhat creates a precedent for other jurors to follow; they are encouraged to inspect other testimonies meticulously, which may in fact be spurious, such as the woman's testimony that she saw the murder happen through the last carriage of the elevated train. This supposition that perhaps "they [witnesses] were wrong" gives life to the rigorous examination of evidences which ultimately leads to the verdict of "not guilty". Also, the individual opinions moulded by personal issues provide a profound basis of discussion. As Juror 3 biasedly opines that the boy is guilty purely based on his hurtful experience with his son and Juror 5 refutes the racists comments towards the youth from slums, the other Jurors are urged to examine the reason behind the alleged murder. In turn, this conflict of opinions although driven by personal issues helps in filling up the holes the testimonies and evidences don't quite cover. Other Jurors are also required to disapprove Juror 3's biased opinion because even though Juror 3 has reasons to be biased unlike Juror 10 who is innately racist, other jurors know for sure that their verdict shouldn't be outweighed by personal attacks on the boy. Moreover, even the apathetic jurors such as Juror 7 and Juror 12's light carefree inputs such as "the Milwaukee rooter is heard from" help to "let the steam off" the distressful discussions, as Juror 3 describes, receding from a highly emotional and serious atmosphere developed inside the jury room. For instance, when he walks out of the room when Juror 9 empathises with the old witness, although appearing to be rude he in fact initiates a short break for the jurors to cool themselves down. Also, while other jurors are cocooned in the responsibility to make a verdict, Juror 7 gets the "fan goin' in here" - the fan symbolising a critical turning point of the play as the coolness of the room represents conflict resolution and the gradual unity within the jury.
Rose illustrates the conflict between twelve entirely different jurors and how it is resolved and a final verdict reached. These conflicts are caused by some jurors who present themselves as prioritising something else over the responsibility as jurors to reach an honest verdict, regarding it as a waste of time. By removing themselves from discussions they prevent themselves, and others, in seeking the truth of the trial as a group. Also, conflicts are oftentimes triggered by jurors involving their own personal experiences which subjugate the jurors' sense of judgement by fabricating their own interpretations of evidences and testimonies. However ultimately, the different perspectives and opinions based on their own issues allow for a reasonable doubt to instil into the jurors' inspection of evidences. And when the arguments seem to become distressing, the unconcerned jurors help cool it down with their light inputs.
Topic: The jurors are far too concerned with their own issues to find the truth of a young boy's guilt or innocence. To what extent do you agree?
The jurors in Reginald Rose's famous play, Twelve Angry Men, engage in countless conflicts discussing whether a boy is guilty or innocent for his father's death. In the core of all conflicts stand the individual jurors' opinions, some of them quite besmirched by their own issues such as experiences, priorities and interpretations of testimonies and evidences. Simultaneously, some jurors are utterly indifferent in fulfilling their duty as a jury, seemingly marring effective communication within the group. However, whilst some jurors' ability to make rational decisions is muddled by their obsessions with their own issues, the irrationality that arises ultimately allows thorough inspection of evidences. Also those who don't have their minds fixated on finding the truth help cool down the fiery atmosphere in the jury room with their light inputs.
The indifference of some jurors prevents effective communication and deliberation of the case. The American judicial system requires jurors to vote as a group, rather than putting values to the individual person's verdicts. However, those whose minds are somewhere else casually single themselves out of the jury by appearing indifferent to their duties. The typical epitome, Juror 7, prioritises a baseball game and consequently disallows communication within the group. From the beginning of the play Juror 7 demonstrates how he thinks the jury system is a "goddamn waste of time" and "better be fast", especially because he "has tickets to a ball game tonight." Throughout the play, Rose displays the growing consciousness of time Juror 7 has by stage instructions such as "looking at his watch" and "he looks up at his watch then up at the clock". This type of attitude muddles Juror 7's interpretation of all evidences and testimonies "Ran. Walked. What's the difference?" which also irritates others as they complain, "stop making smart remarks". Also, some jurors prioritise gloating about their own jobs and careers. As an illustration, on the surface Juror 12 looks like he is very attentive and fixated on finding the truth about the boy, but he often finds ways to divert the attention to how he "worked at an ad agency". Along with Juror 3, at one point he is "playing tic-tac-toe", breaking the flow of discussion about the woman's testimony about seeing the murder through an elevated train. This displays sheer inattentiveness as Juror 8 tries his best to quickly shift the agenda to the boy's trial much to his chagrin. It is worth noting, though, that all the jurors merely disregard the inputs of these apathetic jurors dispersed throughout the play. This is because these indifferent comments are not worthy to be discussed, unlike racist and biased comments which carry an aspect of "reasonable doubt". To sum up, these inattentive jurors remove themselves from the discussion, removing the dynamicity of the jury in finding the truth.
Furthermore involving personal issues such as family and age colour the Jurors' sense of judgement which then hijacks the notion of an absolute truth. Whilst the jurors are required to differentiate "facts from the fancy" as the judge requested, some create their own criteria of justice from their own personal issues, changing what the real truth is. For instance, juror 3, although respects the American judicial system and appears to be rational, is overly concerned with his relationship with his son, how he worked his "heart out" to raise his son who grew up to be a "rotten kid". While Juror 10 is blatantly unreasonable and biased, Juror 3 has his personal reasons in generalising youth as "Angry! Hostile!" However the easily unseen truth here is that even though Juror 3 thinks he is presenting himself as logical, he is subconsciously emotional. Consequently, he sees a different 'truth' of the trial; his adamant perspective is that the boy is a murderer, and even argues he is the "only one who sees" the truth. Moreover personal experiences such as Juror 5's life in slums, invent a new issue surrounding the boy's character instead of the murder itself. The fact is that his profound understanding of the disadvantages of kids who grew up in slums is irrelevant in deciding only whether or not a boy has killed his father. By admitting that "there is something personal" in this trial, Juror 5 is cumbering the jury's attempt to find the truth. Simultaneously, Juror 9 empathises with the old witness in order to doubt the old man's testimony. Rather than taking the testimonies as heard, Juror 9 challenges the truthfulness of the testimony because "facts may be colored by the personalities of the people who present them" as Juror 11 remarks. Because of this, whatever the truth is, the truth is seen from different perspectives as the jurors base their decisions on their own individualistic sense of judgements rather than finding out the real truth of the case.
However, the arguments which are triggered by personal concerns ultimately provide space for thorough discussions, and the jocose inputs of indifferent jurors help to cool down the heat of conflicts. As well as finding the truth, "if there is a reasonable doubt" the jurors have to closely scrutinize facts and evidences. This reasonable doubt becomes the centre of discussion when different perspectives of truth are provided by some jurors based on their own personal experiences. For instance, the suspicion of the old man's testimony introduced by Juror 9 as he understands the old man's senility somewhat creates a precedent for other jurors to follow; they are encouraged to inspect other testimonies meticulously, which may in fact be spurious, such as the woman's testimony that she saw the murder happen through the last carriage of the elevated train. This supposition that perhaps "they [witnesses] were wrong" gives life to the rigorous examination of evidences which ultimately leads to the verdict of "not guilty". Also, the individual opinions moulded by personal issues provide a profound basis of discussion. As Juror 3 biasedly opines that the boy is guilty purely based on his hurtful experience with his son and Juror 5 refutes the racists comments towards the youth from slums, the other Jurors are urged to examine the reason behind the alleged murder. In turn, this conflict of opinions although driven by personal issues helps in filling up the holes the testimonies and evidences don't quite cover. Other Jurors are also required to disapprove Juror 3's biased opinion because even though Juror 3 has reasons to be biased unlike Juror 10 who is innately racist, other jurors know for sure that their verdict shouldn't be outweighed by personal attacks on the boy. Moreover, even the apathetic jurors such as Juror 7 and Juror 12's light carefree inputs such as "the Milwaukee rooter is heard from" help to "let the steam off" the distressful discussions, as Juror 3 describes, receding from a highly emotional and serious atmosphere developed inside the jury room. For instance, when he walks out of the room when Juror 9 empathises with the old witness, although appearing to be rude he in fact initiates a short break for the jurors to cool themselves down. Also, while other jurors are cocooned in the responsibility to make a verdict, Juror 7 gets the "fan goin' in here" - the fan symbolising a critical turning point of the play as the coolness of the room represents conflict resolution and the gradual unity within the jury.
Rose illustrates the conflict between twelve entirely different jurors and how it is resolved and a final verdict reached. These conflicts are caused by some jurors who present themselves as prioritising something else over the responsibility as jurors to reach an honest verdict, regarding it as a waste of time. By removing themselves from discussions they prevent themselves, and others, in seeking the truth of the trial as a group. Also, conflicts are oftentimes triggered by jurors involving their own personal experiences which subjugate the jurors' sense of judgement by fabricating their own interpretations of evidences and testimonies. However ultimately, the different perspectives and opinions based on their own issues allow for a reasonable doubt to instil into the jurors' inspection of evidences. And when the arguments seem to become distressing, the unconcerned jurors help cool it down with their light inputs.