Twelve Angry Men - January 2023

[Aria]

Hello! I finished reading this a couple weeks ago, and I loved it. I was hooked and even though you foresee the ending, the ride was entertaining. After reading a couple comments, I did not know there was a film. I’m excited to watch it.

[J_BlueFlower]

Tom wrote: "Actually, the play never answered the question as to the defendant's guilt or innocence. It was all about the jurors..."

I love that little bit! It forces the reader to first focus on the jurors, and then to ask: But was he guilty? And then you start arguing with yourself going over some of the forms of argumentation again. Very clever.

Personally I would say "no": The knife with no finger prints. It makes no sense that he removed fingerprints rather than removing the knife.

And so I noticed that I argue with myself like number 4: Focusing on one single piece of evidence.

[Carolien]

My copy arrived yesterday from the library and I finished it last night. Coming from South Africa which does not have a jury system, I have no experience of being on one. I'm never sure if I really want to trust my fellow citizens to decide about guilt or not.

What is true across the countries that a lot depends on the quality of the defence. Inevitably those who can afford good lawyers are at an advantage compared to those who need to rely on the state's funding. In South Africa this also results in some people held without bail for ages as there is not enough defenders.

It is an incredibly thought-provoking play about how important a single person could be, how we should all be aware of following the herd and hoping we would have similar courage which is definitely not a given. Thank you to whoever nominated it!

[Tom]

After reading the book and watching the 1957 movie twice, I think that I have absorbed a bit of Juror #8's questioning nature. I've come to the conclusion that Reginald Rose is guilty, at least of making an error on a key point of the plot. Juror #5 made a compelling argument that the boy, being short, wouldn't have stabbed his father overhanded with a switchblade. But the argument that he used, that such a maneuver would require changing the knife's position, is compelling regardless of the size of the assailant. But the autopsy and the old woman's testimony both corroborate that that is what happened. Unless the killing was totally different from what the woman described, the wound wouldn't be a downward stroke at all. Ergo, Rose made a mistake.

[Tom]

I'm curious as to why Juror #5's favorite baseball team changes from Milwaukee in the book to Baltimore in the movie.

[Paula W]

Tom wrote: "I'm curious as to why Juror #5's favorite baseball team changes from Milwaukee in the book to Baltimore in the movie."

I weirdly know the answer to this. Baseball teams often change cities and names, especially during eras of league reorganization. This happened with Baltimore and Milwaukee. Here’s a quick article that explains the history:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Balt...

[Paula W]

Tom wrote: "After reading the book and watching the 1957 movie twice, I think that I have absorbed a bit of Juror #8's questioning nature. I've come to the conclusion that Reginald Rose is guilty, at least of ..."

I think the defendant was guilty. But what I love about this play is that the focus is on procedure instead. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and the prosecution made a flimsy case full of holes. They would have proven nothing at all to me if I were a juror. It was sloppy, and I cant help but wonder if it was sloppy because of his color/class (knowing that a white middle-class jury would likely convict anyway without much work on the prosecution’s part). On the other side of that coin, the defense was pitiful. They didn’t bother to rebut several conflicting testimonies or testimonies that conflicted even itself. When taking an oath as a juror in the US, you promise to convict only if the case laid out before you is clear and concise and left absolutely no reasonable doubt in your mind. The prosecution didn’t do their job and the defense didn’t defend very well. Therefore, he has to be declared innocent. Otherwise, we have cases where the biases of the jurors (as seen here) try to override that oath and convict based on things that have nothing to do with the case.

[Tom]

I knew that the Orioles had recently moved to Baltimore from St. Louis but I didn't look back 50 years to see that the franchise originated in Milwaukee. I had guessed that Fonda, Lumet, or Klugman were fans, but I haven't found any evidence of it.

[Terris]

Paula W wrote: "Tom wrote: "I'm curious as to why Juror #5's favorite baseball team changes from Milwaukee in the book to Baltimore in the movie."

I weirdly know the answer to this. Baseball teams often change ci..."

I love knowing that information, Paula! Thanks!

[Lori]

What a detail to pick up on, Tom! Well spotted and way to go Paula for knowing why!!

[John]

Lori wrote: "What a detail to pick up on, Tom! Well spotted and way to go Paula for knowing why!!"

Yeah! Definitely some nitty gritty trivia to have at your fingertips. :)

[Franky]

(Wow, I just wrote a long post and somehow I erased it ...uhhh. Try number two).

I was way, way late to this one because I was waiting for it on hold at the library and just got it a week or two ago. It was good reading through all the insights and comments. I was watching the film alongside the reading of the play, and thought the play was impactful in terms of highlighting the importance of discussion and keeping one's prejudices out of the jury deliberation and justice process. However, I felt like my only beef with the play was how the ending was handled compared to the classic and brilliant 1957 film with Henry Fonda and Lee J. Cobb (who both give amazing performances). I thought that the ending of the play was rather abrupt and anticlimactic and didn't have quite the power and impact of the film's ending, which I why I stuck with 4 stars instead of 5. At the end (view spoiler)[ I get the sense that #10 isn't really voting with his gut, but maybe just to "get the case over" or something.

8th Juror (to the 10th Juror): Do you still think he's guilty?
10th Juror: Yes, I think he's guilty. But I couldn't care less. You smart bastards do whatever you want to do.
8th Juror: How do you vote?
10th Juror: "Not guilty." Do whatever you want.

Also, the scene with #3 changing his mind was kind of abrupt in comparison to film as well. (hide spoiler)]

Still, very interesting read that always reminds me of jury duty.

[Wobbley]

J_BlueFlower wrote: "In some ways this is a miniature condensation of society as a whole.

We need people like Juror number 8 for society so work.

People in the play:
* The key intelligence, first movers (8)
* The idiots (3: aggressive, 7: thinks only of himself and his ballgame, 10: racist in the broadest sense) and some borderline idiots (12)
* The rest.

I think the play has an important point that “the rest” is not just a grey mass of “sheeps”. Juror number 8 would not have been able to do anything without the backing of this group."

I think this captures it perfectly.

I'm late to this discussion because I only joined the group at the end of January and then it took some time for me to get this book from the library.

I had never heard of this play (or the movie). I enjoyed it very much. I thought it was really compelling. Probably the best book I've read so far this year.

It had a lot to say about the prejudices at the heart of American culture. It really captured how deaf some people (in any culture) are to any form of logic. But I liked that it allowed one of the most steadfast "guilty" voters to still be a reasonable (not angry) person who could respond to evidence if there was enough of it (4th juror); I think having that character there prevents the author's viewpoint from seeming too one-sided, which might have diluted his point.

Still, you could tell this was written in a less cynical time, when people still had some faith in the system. It presents the anger, bullying and prejudice, but still offers hope. I feel like if it were written today, the ending would have been bleaker.

[Lynn, New School Classics]

I purchased this play and meant to read it months ago when it was a group read, but time....

Many times I read a book after seeing a movie and find that the movie enhanced my reading experience. The movie gave me a basic framework and then the book filled in character backstories and motivations. Not so this time. I find that although this play Twelve Angry Men was probably the original that set the template for all others that followed, I only gave it 3*.

I watched the Henry Fonda movie version at a child in the early 1970s and it was amazing; it really made an impact. Honestly, I cannot count the number of times I have seen the plot rehashed: a lone juror convinces the other eleven to change their minds and reveals their character flaws in the process. It seems like most TV shows have at some point done this plot. Think of Felix Unger in "The Odd Couple" - "When you 'assume' you make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me' ". I even saw Phoebe (Alyssa Milano) in "Charmed" making the speeches. The plot has been used so often that I groan when a character gets called for jury duty.

About personal jury duty experience:

1. My step-father was a lawyer. He was once assigned a death penalty indigent case. He was the third lawyer, because the other two quit. He said the man readily admitted he did the crime and had no remorse. My step-father got the case during the execution appeals process, so the verdict was already laid down. This sort of thing was dinner table conversation when I was a teenager.

2. As an 18 year old living away I received a jury summons. Since my step-father had cases on the same docket I was automatically kicked out of the pool. I was bummed out at the time, but it is a wise rule.

3. As a 55 year old teacher I was called to report for the Grand Jury pool. There were double the number of people needed so I was in the group that was thanked and sent home.

4. Active teachers do serve on juries in my state. In February of this year, 2023, one of my co-workers missed two weeks of school because she had to serve on a horrific child abuse/murder case involving a live-in boyfriend of the mom. Jury duty is not nearly as fun as this play depicted. We only saw the drama in the room, not the longer term psychological impact this can have.

Addendum: After my step-father finished the case, because the convicted man was executed, he changed his law practice eliminating the criminal portion so that he would never again be assigned to a case like that. At the time people told him he should quit too, but he said he believed in the system and without lawyers to represent all people - the guilty and the innocent - the system could not function. His involvement with this case took two years. He lost a lot of money due to travel expenses and time spent on it. When a case like this is assigned it is "pro bono" work. But he did not regret "sticking with this man to the end" as he would put it. If I ever knew the name of the executed man I have blocked it out ... stuff like this can effect so many more people than you think and for so much longer than you think.

My step-father then specialized in estate planning and developed quite a name for it. My first teenage job was working as a receptionist and typist in the law office. Imagine the 4 lawyers with handheld recording devices (dictaphones) and two full-time legal secretaries plus me typing the briefs (with headphones listening to the recordings) that were turned in at the courts. Man there really was a lot of drama in estate planning... that is another story.

[Sara, Old School Classics]

Thank you for sharing this, Lynn. I think it is amazing how many people do not know anything about the legal system and how it works. I have also not served on a jury, but I have never begged off. They sent a form recently that would excuse anyone my age from being called if completed and returned. I have not done that and probably won't until I feel I am either not able to serve because my mind or my body is not up to it. If I were the accused, I would want conscientious people on my jury, so I feel obligated to be one of those if the occasion ever arises.

[Lynn, New School Classics]

I just looked up the case my step-father served as lawyer on. At the time there was no need to traumatize a teenage girl like me with the details. It was a murder. The man was clinically insane. It was known he was insane and he never tried to deny the details. In fact, he would add more crimes to confess to that he never could have committed due to his delusions. The appeals process of his execution went on for 20 years!! He died of natural causes in prison at the age of 54.

All these years I thought the man was executed, but he wasn't.

[Sara, Old School Classics]

I admire your step-father for being willing to give the man a defense. Always sad when you think of all the lives ruined. His, whomever he murdered, anyone who loved either one of them. I can see why it would have stayed with you all these years, things affect us when we are young.

[Michaela]

What an awful story, Lynn, but glad the man wasn´t executed. I wonder that he didn´t go into forensic commitment when he was insane. I understand that it all stayed with you for years.

[Lynn, New School Classics]

Michaela wrote: "What an awful story, Lynn, but glad the man wasn´t executed. I wonder that he didn´t go into forensic commitment when he was insane. I understand that it all stayed with you for years."

Again my step-father's involvement was only as someone trying to get him not executed.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/insanity...

[Sara, Old School Classics]

Oh goodness, what a horrible thing. No wonder they didn't share any details with you as a girl. Of course, I feel the saddest for the young lady who was killed...for nothing, without any reason...could just as easily have stolen the car and just put her out.