The play "Twelve Angry Men" by Reginald Rose contains many elements that examine the implementation of the American justice system in 1957 and help shape the deliberations of the case. Perhaps the most important element is the relationship between Juror 3 and Juror 8, as the constant conflict between these two drives the drama's narrative, allowing other significant elements to develop and be explored. The conflict between Juror 3 and Juror 8 does not exist in isolation: what they discuss resonates with the other jurors who naturally gravitate to one "side" or the other. The jurors' interactions highlight the other important element of the show: prejudice. This integral theme would appear to be the driving force behind the initial "culprit" role. However, the conflict between Jurors 3 and 8 also stimulates discussion about the reliability of the evidence presented. This leads to the next important element – ​​reasonable doubt – being recognized as a possibility by jurors. Without the conflict between Jurors 3 and 8 none of the other elements would have developed, thus resulting in the certain execution of a potentially innocent young man. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay From the beginning of the show the audience can see the jury room divided into warring blocks between those who guarantee a guilty verdict and those who guarantee a not guilty verdict. This is mainly due to the fact that the jury room is driven by the verdict; the discussion is shaped by battles between jurors defending their first verdict choices. Juror 8 is the most significant character as he is the only juror to vote "not guilty" in the early moments of the show, thus initiating the central conflict. Just as the eighth juror is the symbol of the boys' innocence, the third juror is the symbol of the boys' guilt. The 3rd juror's lack of compassion is contrasted with the 8th's compassion. Although he claims to have "no personal feelings about this" case, it is clear that he has a very personal motivation for wanting to convict the young defendant: "That damn lousy boy, I know him, as I am." What they do to you, how they kill you every day.' It is obvious that the relationship between these two characters is turbulent and conflictual. Through the eighth juror, Rose highlights the power of the lone voice in the overwhelming majority. When asked to justify his not guilty vote, the eighth juror makes no argument for the boy's innocence but rather points out that "it's not easy for [him] to raise [his] hand and send a boy to die without talking about it first.' The third juror is not willing to waste time in discussions and is convinced that the case is "one of those open and shut things". The eighth juror thinks that perhaps "we owe the boy a few words" and this sentence opens the door to heated debate, particularly between the third and eighth jurors. While the eighth juror is concerned with ensuring that the defendant has a fair trial and that the jury carefully considers the details, the third juror is. impatient and would rather "stop wasting time." Several key moments illustrate the nature of the relationship between the 3rd and 8th jurors they reenact the stabbing and the 3rd juror stabs as the blade stops about an inch from the 8th juror's chest. This moment characterizes the personalities and their interactions, as the 3rd juror is generally more aggressive both physically and mentally, while the 8th remains firm in his beliefs and opinions, showing tolerance and compassiontowards others. Without these two characters there would be no exploration of the jurors' prejudices, as their conflicted relationship allows the other jurors' personalities to be revealed and potentially show the audience why they vote the way they do. However, although the relationship between the two is integral to the part, prejudice is equally significant in driving the narrative of the drama within the play. Prejudice is observed on many levels throughout the show; the most obvious is racial. Although the accused's race is never revealed, the audience understands that the boy belongs to some sort of minority, as he is often referred to as "one of them." When considering prejudice in a broader sense, it is quite clear that many jurors enter the jury room with preconceived notions and irrational ideas. From the first and second votes of the show the audience is exposed quite openly to the prejudices of juror 3 and juror 10; "The boy is a dangerous killer, you can see it... it's the boys, as they are today." The 7th juror is another who pre-judges the boy based on his background and previous experiences: "Look at his record, he was in juvenile court." Even the 10th juror openly declares his prejudices towards the boy: "These people were born to lie, they are made like this and no intelligent man will tell me otherwise". The fourth juror has similar beliefs: "This kid, let's say he's the product of a dirty neighborhood and a broken home...children from poor neighborhoods are potential threats to society." Juror 10 believes that "those" people are "wild animals" and this case presents an opportunity to have one before "his kind gets us." 'I've lived among them all my life, you can't believe a word they say... they're born liars.' Juror 3's prejudices and emotional baggage become quite apparent as he accuses the other jurors of having "bleeding hearts" all over the hall for "slum kids and injustice" and warns "it must burn." You're letting this slip through the cracks. our fingers.' He says he would 'happily flip the switch' on the young defendant. Other jurors are less prejudiced. Juror 5, who comes from a difficult background, is offended because he feels there is prejudice against him because of his. education. Juror 11 may also feel offended: "This kind of feeling I can understand," he says, suggesting that he too has suffered prejudice in the past. And although at the beginning of the show he "had no personal feelings about the case", juror 8 accuses Juror 3: “You want to see this guy die because you personally want it, not because of the facts.” You are a sadist.” The different types and reactions to prejudice demonstrate that prejudice is an integral theme and would appear to be the driving force for the initial role of "culprit"; however, conflict among jurors stimulates discussion about the reliability of the evidence presented, so reasonable doubt comes into play as another theme. The public never finds out for sure whether the accused is guilty or innocent. Although much of the evidence is questioned and manipulated by the eighth juror, at the end of the case there remains a tremendous amount of evidence stacked against the accused. However, it is still "beyond a reasonable doubt" that jurors must find the defendant guilty in order to convict him, and ultimately everyone concludes that they have at least some doubt. From the first scene of the play the judge says: "if there is a reasonable doubt then you must give a verdict of 'not guilty', however if there is no reasonable doubt you must find the defendant guilty". The eighth juror is the first to determine that there may be a".