Produced by Christopher Creek Reginald Rose 1920 2002

Produced by Christopher Creek

Reginald Rose 1920 -2002

The Play (written in 1954): Social Context - Mc. Carthyism Joseph Mc. Carthy Ed. Murrow http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=FQQa. X 2 h 1 plo http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=BIk. U 4 MMQZ 54&feature=related

The Play (written in 1954): Social Context - Mc. Carthyism Ed. Murrow Arthur Miller http: //www. spartacus. schoolnet. co. uk/USAmccarthyism. htm http: //en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Mc. Carthyism http: //apus-b. wikispaces. com/post+war+domestic-political+cartoons Joseph Mc. Carthy

Reginald Rose [about his inspiration for 12 Angry Men] It was such an impressive, solemn setting in a great big wood-panelled courtroom, with a silver-haired judge. It knocked me out. I was overwhelmed. I was on a jury for a manslaughter case, and we got into this terrific, furious, eighthour argument in the jury room. I was writing one-hour dramas for "Studio One" (1948) then and I thought, "Wow, what a setting for a drama!" In Upstaging the Cold War: American dissent and cultural diplomacy, 1940 -1960 (Andrew Justin Falk) Rose is acknowledged as an antagonist of Mc. Carthyism. Referring to his writing in An Almanac of Liberty (1954) Rose reflects “Issues that bother me are issues concerning people who want to impose their beliefs on others. . . In a way, almost everything I wrote in the fifties was about Mc. Carthy. ” (Falk, p. 164).

Title: 12 Angry Men (1954) Author: Reginald Rose Setting: • Physical The claustrophobia of a jury room • Atmospheric: A hot and steamy summer’s afternoon in New York. • Social setting – the Mc. Carthy Era. • Time – Late in the day. • The question at the heart – the functioning of American democracy and justice. • Cultural: The West Coast of the United States (New York) in the mid 1950 s. Genre: Courtroom drama and a Socio -political Polemic or discourse.

The vehicle of exploration: A jury-room drama The question at the heart: the functioning of American democracy and justice.

Structure: • A play in two Acts; (originally written in three. ) Without scene breaks the movement of the play is shaped by the content – the resolution of the conflict in order to achieve a unanimous verdict. The progress is shaped by the changing of the jurors’ votes with the regular taking of votes to cement those shifts. It is the changing of opinion the forms the core of the narrative and shapes the movement of the play. • Obeys the Classical Unities (as described by Aristotle): Unity of Action – only one central plot; Unity of Place; and Unity of Time – does not have significant shifts in chronology.

Structure cont. . . : • The Impact of Rose’s use of Classical Unities – allows the audience to feel close to the characters, their challenges and conflicts. Unity Nature Impact Action There is no action outside this There are no moments of relief or small space. All else takes place off distraction (by scene changes) so the -stage. tension remains until it is resolved and the unanimous verdict achieved. Place The characters cannot leave the jury room until their job is done. Steamy new York Summer’s day adds to the claustrophobia of the jury room. Time Uses ‘real time’ with the passing of Creates an intense focus on this small piece time on stage equal to the passing of the character’s lives. of time for the audience In the same way the audience has no escape until from their reality until the action of the play concludes.

Structure cont. . . : • The progression of the play. . . Act 1. Part Pages Summary Act 1: (pp. 1 -7) – (Introduction) ends when Foreman resumes his seat after the first vote Judge reminds Jury of their task; guard brings in jury, informal vote by show of hands – vote is 11: 1. Act 1: Juror 8’s position Juror 8 defends his vote; the juror’s agree to one hour’s discussion, each to explain their reasons for their vote; 8 th Juror requests knife. (pp. 7 -15) – ends with the Guard going to retrieve the knife Central conflict: Jury must come to an unanimous decision – “reasonable doubt” must mean a vote for acquittal. Key ideas: respect of process and impartiality

Structure cont. . . : • The progression of the play. . . Act 1. . . Cont. Part Pages Summary Act 1: Second (pp. 15 -19) Vote Guard delivers the ‘unusual knife’; 8 th Juror introduces identical knife; juror’s argue over “possible” and “probable”; Juror 8 call for a secret ballot but without his participation. Vote is 10: 2 A piece of circumstantial evidence is contested. Act 1: Third Vote Juror’s respond aggressively; 3 wrongly accuses 5 of weakness and changing his vote; knife returned to the guard; several jurors retreat to the wash room; 8 questions evidence and witness testimony, the calls for another vote. Vote 9: 3 Key questions: testimony of elderly man; the competence of the defendant’s court appointed lawyer; defendant’s behaviour. (pp. 19 -31)

Structure cont. . . : • The progression of the play. . . Act 1 concluded. Part Pages Act 1: first (pp. 31 -37) demonstration Summary Questions about the old man’s testimony continue; 8 th juror requests the apartment floor plan; he reconstructs the scenario to test the witnesses testimony – frustration rises in the room; 8’s argument is supported. The end of the Act concludes with 8 provoking 3 to use the words “I’ll kill him”. 8 uses this to reinforce his earlier point. Key Questions: Old man’s testimony (a key witness) cast into doubt; Circumstantial evidence of the boys use of “I’ll kill you” is undermined.

Structure cont. . . : • The progression of the play. . . Act 2. Part Pages Summary Act 2: Fourth Vote (pp. 38 -40) Evening arrives; storm approaches another vote is called. Vote is 6: 6. The storm outside heralds what is yet to come in the jury room. Act 2: Second (pp. 40 -7) demonstration The storm breaks; 3 rd juror defends his earlier outburst; juror’s arguments begin to get personal; 8 conducts another demonstration (with 4’s help) to support his argument for reasonable doubt; juror’s agree to spend one more hour in reasonable debate. Key Question: whether or not to move for a hung jury? Circumstantial evidence of the nature of the Defendant’s recall at the time of arrest is found to be plausible – thus undermining one of Juror 4’s key points.

Structure cont. . . : • The progression of the play. . . Act 2. . . cont. Part Pages Summary Act 2: Third (pp. 47 -50) demonstration 2 nd Juror questions the “evidence” about the direction of the stab wound; 3 rd demonstrates the stabbing motion; 5 th contradicts this (from his own knowledge); 7 th decides to vote “notguilty”. Key issues: 3 and 10 feeling the tide shifting become more inflamed. This time flimsy evidence (in terms of relevance to the defendant’s guilt) is brought into question. Juror 11 challenges 7’s lack of civilresponsibility until 7 – changing for the wrong reasons. Act 2: Fifth Vote Show of hands 12 th and Foreman change their vote to “not-guilty”. 10 th juror’s xenophobia is in full flight – using aggression and fear in order to win his argument; another vote is called. Key issue: xenophobia as a threat to justice. (pp. 51 -4)

Structure cont. . . : • The progression of the play. . . Act 2 concluded. Part Pages Summary Act 2: Sixth vote (pp. 54 -8) 12 Juror changes his mind back to guilty; agree to discuss “hung jury” if they can’t resolve the vote by 7 pm; 9 th juror observes that the second witness needs glasses and therefore her testimony is questionable; 12 juror changes his vote again and 10 th juror shamed into changing his vote. Key issues: 12 th juror the only one to change his vote more than once; Key witness (woman) has testimony questioned and undermined. Act 2: Verdict (pp 58 -9) 4 th juror changes his vote; 3 rd makes a last stand then changes; Foreman informs the guard they have a verdict; the rain outside stops; the compassionate dénoument. Key issue: Personal issues have no place in the pursuit of justice.

Style : Naturalism and Realism (or in T. V. It is called “slice of life”). Naturalist theatre is confronting striving to present real life in its grittiness, interpersonal conflicts and everyday detail without theatrical artifice. It is also realist in that the narrative is carried by concrete action on stage and is rarely supported by theatricality or symbolism. Language: The patterns are in keeping with the style and are natural to the social milieu and geographical setting represented. • The Style of dialogue is concrete and the vernacular makes reference to the common aspects of their lives. • Legal terminology is used with familiarity.

Introduction Act I (and key quotes) Judge’s voice: You are faced with a grave responsibility. (p. 6) 8 th Juror: It’s no easy for me to raise my hand send a boy off to die without talking about it first. (p. 12) The Second Vote: 4 th Juror: Everyone has a breaking point (p. 17) 5 th Juror: There is something personal! (p. 18) 8 th Juror: People make mistakes (p. 20) 9 th Juror: It’s only one night. A boy may die. (p. 25) Another Vote: 3 rd Juror: There are no secrets in a jury room (p. 26) 11 th Juror: I have always thought that in this country a man was entitle to have unpopular opinions. (. 27) 9 th Juror: It’s not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others (p. 28) 8 th Juror: He can’t hear you. He never will. 11 th Juror: Facts may be coloured by the personalities if the people who present them

Third Vote: Act I (and key quotes) 11 th Juror: I don’t believe I have to be loyal to one side or another (p. 39) 8 th Juror: Maybe all these things are so. But maybe they’re not (p. 40) 10 th Juror: You’re making out like it don’t matter what people say. (p. 40) The Re-enactment: 3 rd Juror: He’s got to burn, We’re letting him slip through our fingers (p. 47) 8 th Juror: You want to see this boy die because you personally want it, not because of the facts (p. 47)

Fourth Vote: Act II (and key quotes) 11 th Juror: We have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict. This is one of the reasons we are strong. We should not make it a personal thing (p. 50) 3 rd Juror: Let’s see who stands where (p. 50) 3 rd Juror: You took an oath in the courtroom (p. 54) 7 th Juror: I’m tellin’ ya they’re all alike. He comes over to this country running for his life and before he can even take a big breath he’s telling us how to run the show. (p. 55) Fifth Vote: 11 th Juror: In discussing such a thing as the murder potential w should remember that many of us are capable of murder. But few of us do. We impose controls on ourselves to prevent it (p. 59) 7 th Juror: All this yakkin’s gettin’ us nowhere. . . (p. 62) 11 th Juror: You have no right to play like this with a man’s life. This is a terrible and ugly thing to do. (p. 63)

Act II (and key quotes) Unanimous Vote: 10 th Juror: They are different. They think different. They act different. (p. 64) 8 th Juror: . . . Prejudice obscures the truth (p. 66) 8 th Juror: But we have a reasonable doubt, and this is a safeguard that has enormous value in our system. (p. 66) 3 rd Juror: I don’t care whether I’m alone or not. It’s my right (p. 71)

Characterisation: internal and external Primary Characters Secondary Characters Remaining Characters

Characterisation: Primary Characters The Vengeful Bully The Rational Man The man of Integrity The Bigot

Characterisation: Juror 5 Experiences the prejudice of juror 10 Attacked by Juror 3 (feelings) Dismissed by 1 Given Opportunity by 8 Supported by 9

Characterisation: Juror 10 2 4 6 1 10 11 9

Characterisation: Character Binaries 3 2 4 8 10 9 7 11 These binaries give a good summary of the key conflicts within the play

Characterisation: You oughta have more respect, Mister. You say stuff like that again and I’m gonna’ lay you out. Lawful Good I don’t believe I have to be loyal to one side or another, I’m simply asking questions. Lawful Neutral I don’t care whether I’m alone or not, it’s my right. Lawful Evil Alignments I’m not trying to change your mind, it’s just that we are talking about someone’s life here. Neutral Good You can’t send someone off to die on evidence like that. True Neutral Frankly, I don’t see how you can move for acquittal Neutral Evil “. . . It’s not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others. He gambled for support and I gave it to him. Chaotic Good Hey, you just take of yourself, you know. Chaotic Neutral You know how these people lie, it’s born in them. Chaotic Evil

Characterisation: 2. You can’t send someone off to die on evidence like that. 3. I don’t care whether I’m alone or not, it’s my right. Character quotes: 4. Frankly, I don’t see how you can move for acquittal. 5. I used to play in a backyard that was filled with garbage. Maybe it still smells on me. 6. You oughta have more respect, Mister. You say stuff like that again and I’m gonna’ lay you out. 7. Hey, you just take care of yourself, you know. 1. Please, please. . . 12. Um, if noone else has an idea, I have a cutie, here. I mean I haven’t put much thought into it. . 11. I don’t believe I have to be loyal to one side or another, I’m simply asking questions. 10. You know how these people lie, it’s born in them. 9. . . It’s not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others. He gambled for support and I gave it to him. 8. I’m not trying to change your mind, it’s just that we are talking about someone’s life here.

Characterisation: Timid, Cowered Character role-traits: Intimidating, Hurt Bully, vengeful Dispassionate Disempowered, / Rational Knowing Ineffectual in Leadership Hollow, Vacillating Unqualified, Decent Hedonistic, Sports fan Enlightened, Prejudiced, Keeper of Values Bigot Bypassed Wisdom Integrity, Empathy

Juror no. 1 (Foreman) The Ineffectual Leader Key Script: Cut and run when it get’s too hard. Description: A small, petty man who is impressed with the authority he has and handles himself quite formally. Not overly bright, but dogged. He attempts to “cut and run” when things get difficult. Social Commentary: Ineffectual leadership (laissez faire and conflict avoidant) leaves the space for the potential for injustice.

Juror no. 2 The Intimidated Man Key Script: Avoid getting hurt; “go along to get along”. Description: A meek, hesitant man. Although he is aware he is easily intimidated and finds it difficult to maintain any opinions of his own. Needs the courage of others if he is to stand up. Social Commentary: Those without courage create the opportunities for injustice, will follow the “strong” person.

Juror no. 3 The Intimidating Man (Hurt Bully) Key Script: Shout to be heard and to get your own way. Description: A very strong, very forceful, extremely opinionated man within whom can be detected a streak of sadism. He is a humourless man (in this context) who is intolerant of opinions other than his own and accustomed to forcing his wishes and views upon others. A Bully. Social Commentary: a) Intimidation is a valid process for getting what you want; b) When everything is personal justice is denied.

Juror no. 4 The Rational Man Key Script: Head over heart. . . That’s the way to do life. Description: Seems to be a man of wealth and position (Stockbroker). He is a practiced speaker who presents himself well at all times. He seems to feel a little bit above the rest of the jurors. His only concern is with the facts in this case, and he is appalled at the behaviour of the others. Social Commentary: Dispassionate Rationalism can be just another cover; does not guarantee justice.

Juror no. 5 The Disempowered Man Key Script: No one listens to me so why say anything. Description: A disempowered, very frightened young man who takes his obligations in this case very seriously; but, who finds it difficult to speak up when those with authority have the floor. He comes from the same disadvantaged background as the defendant. Social Commentary: The voiceless and disempowered are at the mercy of others but are unlikely to get it. Yet they have a legitimate voice and need to be heard.

Juror no. 6 The “Unqualified” Man Key Script: I’m not qualified – leave it to others who are better at it. Description: An everyday honest working man but somewhat dull-witted. He comes to his decisions slowly and often guided by others. A man who finds it difficult to create positive opinions, and therefore listens to, digests and accepts those opinions offered by others which appeal to him most; especially, those who have authority over him. However, he is a moral man and can stand up for those being treated badly. Social Commentary: a) That fear-based decision-making has negative ramifications; b) Those that leave critical thinking to others are part of the problem – they fail the democratic process and the pursuit of justice.

Juror no. 7 The Hedonistic Man Key Script: Don’t inconvenience me; my pleasure/convenience comes first. Description: A loud, brash salesman type who has more important things to do than to sit on a jury. He is quick to show temper, quick to form opinions on things about which he knows nothing. Is a bully and, of course, a coward. He is also about his own pleasures and convenience; moral virtue does not take precedence. Social Commentary: Those that place self-interest above their responsibility and civic duty are given to expediency and cannot be relied on for justice.

Juror no. 8 The Man of Integrity Key Script: Take responsibility seriously. Care about others. Description: A quiet, thoughtful, gentle man. A man who sees all sides of every question and constantly seeks the truth. A man of strength tempered with compassion. Above all, he is a man who wants justice to be done and will strive to see that it is. Takes responsibility! Social Commentary: If they are to remain alive, Democracy and Justice are an individual’s responsibility and must be deliberately and consciously engaged (sometimes courageously).

Juror no. 9 The Wise Man Key Script: It doesn’t hurt to listen. Description: A mild gentle old man long since defeated by time. A man who recognises himself for what he is and mourns the days when it would have been possible to be courageous without shielding himself behind his many years. However, he is also a wise man who has lived life sufficiently to know that other “voices” are worth hearing, especially those with the courage of their convictions. Social Commentary: Justice requires us to at least listen to the dissenter. Objectivity and compassion are two of the keys to the proper function of justice and democracy.

Juror no. 10 The Bigoted Man Key Script: Everyone has to be like “me”. Description: An angry, bitter man. He is a man who antagonises almost at sight. A bigot, who places no value on any human life save his own, a man who has been nowhere and is going nowhere and knows it deep within himself. Social Commentary: Through this character is described the potential danger of allowing racism and bigotry to go unchecked; xenophobia guarantees injustice will prevail. Bigotry can subvert the rights of individuals in a democratic society.

Juror no. 11 The Enlightened Man Key Script: Don’t let it happen to others. Description: A refugee from Europe who has come to this country in 1941. A man who speaks with an accent and who is self-conscious, humble, almost subservient to the people around him, but who will honestly seek justice because he has suffered through so much injustice. Social Commentary: If democracy and justice are to work they must be thoughtfully valued and rationally and logically defended at every opportunity.

Juror no. 12 The Hollow Man Key Script: I’ve got nothing; that is, unless you like it. Description: A slick, bright advertising man who thinks of human beings in terms of percentages, graphs and polls and has no real understanding of them. He is superficial, trying to be all things to all men, but wants to be thought of better than he is. He is not very intelligent. Social Commentary: His lack of defined point of view reflects America’s post-war materialism; hollow and vacillating – no sense of social responsibility, responsible thought or behaviour.

Themes:

Theme: The Rule of Law This is one of the primary focuses of the text including the importance of the Jury in a democracy. q Through the various jurors the potential threats to democracy are revealed. q While the jurors spends the length of the play deliberating guilt there is no search for any single truth; guilty or not. q Rose believes (and posits in the play) that “the wiser and more emotionally stable jurors must responsibly lead those men with less self-awareness and self-knowledge than they, if democracy is to have any chance to work justly and fairly” (Cunningham 1991, p. 69). Its also interesting that see that those who epitomise the spirit of American democracy are: a) the weaker elderly man still allowed a voice; b) the refugee embracing the freedoms America has to offer and c) the slum child who is now a contributing member of society – apart from Juror 8 these are the first to rise to defend the democratic process.

Theme: The Rule of Law. . . cont. q The 8 th Juror possesses a clear understanding of the Law and it is his role to defend the role of the jury system and the importance of deliberation and discussion in a democracy: q “The burden of proof is on the prosecution” (p. 14) q He continuously focuses on “reasonable doubt” which is “a safeguard and has enormous value in our system. ” (p. 66) q He identifies the over-reliance on “circumstantial evidence” by the prosecution and questions the intelligence of defense counsel (p. 20) q He is contrasted with Juror 10 who “don’t give a goddam about the law” (p. 65) and sees his national duty as a nuisance and who becomes frustrated when can’t use it legitimise his bigotry q While Juror 8 has the moral fibre to stand alone so does Juror 3 “I don’t care whether I’m alone or not. It’s my right” (p. 71). The fear is that, while both are strong men able to stand against a group, one would take others down a path of personal retribution instead of prompting us to reexamine the obvious.

Theme: The Rule of Law. . . cont. q While the play appeals to the rules and regulations that govern socially acceptable behaviour there is another discussion that takes place. That moral conduct and inherent tendencies are more fundamental; this is the point of the discussion about the psychiatrist’s testtimony. q The prosecution (through the psychiatrist) alleged “The boy had strong homicidal tendencies” (p. 58) q 11 th Juror reminds us we all have the potential; the way he was “brought up” (p. 59) influences his and others’ behaviour and furthermore, while we might be “capable of committing murder. . . We impose controls upon ourselves” (p. 59)

Theme: The Rule of Law. . . cont. q Finally, the play discusses the nature of evidence and testimony. q The discussion has its beginnings in Juror 2’s comment “I just – think he’s guilty. . I mean nobody proved otherwise. ” (p. 14) q Juror 8 puts, when discussing the facts, that “testimony that could put a human being into the electric chair should be accurate. ” (p. 35) q This further developed by Juror 11 (possibly from personal experience) when he suggests “Facts may be coloured by the personalities of the people who present them. (p. 36) q This followed by Juror 8’s assertion that “sometimes the facts that are staring you in the face are wrong!” (p. 38) q Finally, Juror 2 echoes the need for irrefutable evidence later in the play with “You can’t send someone off to die on evidence like that. ” (p. 71)

Theme: Prejudice and Racism The background of the young man (an unidentified minority, raise in a slum. The suppositions a) slums are breeding grounds for criminals” and b) children raised in them are “potential menaces to society” (p. 18). Bigoted stereotypes and generalisations conflict with reason, logic, objectivity and common sense – all of which must triumph over prejudice if democracy is to thrive. Rose, in this play, reveals the true impact of prejudice and racism and its power to subvert the very systems meant to guarantee liberty and the “pursuit of happiness” for all. Egalitarianism is easily voided in the hands of humanity.

Theme: Prejudice and Racism. . . cont. q The jury system is based on the ideal: a defendant is tried by a jury of his peers. This is not the case in this circumstance. q Technically the defendant and the jurors are equal before the law. q However, his socio-economic origins translate into a set of assumptions, held by those entrusted to decide his guilt or innocence. Prejudice is based on Definitions (give examples in the next chart Stereotyping (attitude): A collection of beliefs held about a people belonging to a certain group. Leads to discrimination (behaviour) see below. Hypocrisy: Often based on inadequate information; often inconsistent ideas are held about the group. Fear: Assessed as a threat so the group becomes “they/them” Stigmatisation: Negative evaluation that makes people of a group feel like outcasts; leading to feelings of shame, loss of confidence, lower self-esteem and restricted ambitions in life. Discrimination: Positive or negative behaviour towards a particular group.

Theme: Prejudice and Racism. . . cont. Prejudice Stereotyping (attitude): Hypocrisy: Fear: Stigmatisation: Discrimination (behaviour): Examples from the text

Theme: Civic Duty & Social Responsibility In a democracy the notion of active citizenship is fundamental. It also requires that all who participate are willing to transcend personal differences in order to achieve a “good”. There is a clear distinction in the play between those who can do this and those who will always put self-interest first. Furthermore those that are ill-equipped to participate are highlighted as are those who find it difficult to own responsibility in the process. The play also reveals that when people put aside personal issues/prejudices – that a collective wisdom can surface and justice can prevail. Question: How are these issues relevant to Australia today?

Theme: Justice The play is a warning about the fragility of justice and the forces of complacency, prejudice, and lack of civic responsibility that would undermine it. Several jurors show that they are virtually incapable of considering the matter fairly and listening to opposing points of view. Threat Answer Juror 3: Personalised prejudice – seeking retribution Juror 8: Refuses to let emotions interfere with the case Juror 7: Lack of Civic Responsibility Juror 11: “. . . We have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict. This is one of the reasons why we are strong. " Juror 10 ( and to a lesser extent 4): Juror 9: Challenges the prejudice Prejudiced against anyone that comes from All reject it in the end. the slum All (except 8) but particularly 12 suffer from complacency. 12 exemplifies how all have been persuaded by the prosecution Juror 8: Challenged by 8 “no easy thing”

Topic Tracking: The Fair Trial

The Fair Trial: Is predicated on 4 presumptions: a) Innocent until proven guilty a) Evidence is accurate and objective b) The verdict is unanimous b) The Competence of Counsel (prosecutor and defence) c) A Jury that takes its responsibilities seriously and impartially d) Witnesses will tell the truth

The Fair Trial: Introduction (p. 1 -7) Presumption 1 Innocent until proven guilty 2 Competence of Counsel 3 Witnesses can be relied on 4 Jury is responsible & impartial Reference

The Fair Trial: Juror 8’s concern (pp. 4 -15) Presumption 1 Innocent until proven guilty 2 Competence of Counsel 3 Witnesses can be relied on 4 Jury is responsible & impartial Reference

The Fair Trial: Second Vote (pp. 15 -19) Presumption 1 Innocent until proven guilty 2 Competence of Counsel 3 Witnesses can be relied on 4 Jury is responsible & impartial Reference

The Fair Trial: Third Vote (pp. 19 -31) Presumption 1 Innocent until proven guilty 2 Competence of Counsel 3 Witnesses can be relied on 4 Jury is responsible & impartial Reference

The Fair Trial: First Demonstration (pp. 31 -37) Presumption 1 Innocent until proven guilty 2 Competence of Counsel 3 Witnesses can be relied on 4 Jury is responsible & impartial Reference

The Fair Trial: Fourth Vote (pp. 38 -40) Presumption 1 Innocent until proven guilty 2 Competence of Counsel 3 Witnesses can be relied on 4 Jury is responsible & impartial Reference

The Fair Trial: Second Demonstration (pp. 40 -47) Presumption 1 Innocent until proven guilty 2 Competence of Counsel 3 Witnesses can be relied on 4 Jury is responsible & impartial Reference

The Fair Trial: Third Demonstration (pp. 47 -50) Presumption 1 Innocent until proven guilty 2 Competence of Counsel 3 Witnesses can be relied on 4 Jury is responsible & impartial Reference

The Fair Trial: Fifth Vote (pp. 51 -54) Presumption 1 Innocent until proven guilty 2 Competence of Counsel 3 Witnesses can be relied on 4 Jury is responsible & impartial Reference

The Fair Trial: Sixth Vote (pp. 54 -58) Presumption 1 Innocent until proven guilty 2 Competence of Counsel 3 Witnesses can be relied on 4 Jury is responsible & impartial Reference

The Fair Trial: The verdict (pp. 58 -59) Presumption 1 Innocent until proven guilty 2 Competence of Counsel 3 Witnesses can be relied on 4 Jury is responsible & impartial Reference

A Look Around the Table Opinion Shapers Opinion Facilitators Opinion Followers

The Ineffectual Leader The Hollow The Timid The Enlightened The Aggressiveness Bully The Bigot The Dispassionately Rational The “Bypassed” Wise The Disempowered The Carrier of Integrity Opinion Shapers Opinion Facilitators Opinion Followers The “Unqualified” The “Hedonistic”

Opinion Shapers The Ineffectual Leader The Hollow The Enlightened The Bigot The “Bypassed” Wise The Carrier of Integrity The Timid The Aggressive Bully The Dispassionately Rational The Disempowered The “Unqualified” The “Hedonistic”

Opinion Facilitators The Ineffectual Leader The Hollow The Timid The Enlightened The Aggressive Bully The Bigot Bypassed Wisdom The Carrier of Integrity The “Hedonistic” The Dispassionately Rational The Disempowered The “Unqualified”

Opinion Followers The Ineffectual Leader The Hollow The Timid The Enlightened The Aggressiveness Bully The Bigot The “Bypassed” Wise The Carrier of Integrity The Dispassionately Rational The Disempowered The “Unqualified” The “Hedonistic”

Another Look Around the Table Using Directional Theory Toward Against Away from

? Toward Against Away from

Using Directional Theory Toward Compliance: This category is seen as a process of "moving towards people", or self-effacement. Under Horney's theory children facing difficulties with parents often use this strategy. Fear of helplessness and abandonment occurs—phenomena Horney refers to as "basic anxiety". Those within the compliance category tend to exhibit a need for affection and approval on the part of their peers. They may also seek out a partner, somebody to confide in, fostering the belief that, in turn, all of life's problems would be solved by the new cohort. A lack of demands and a desire for inconspicuousness both occur in these individuals.

Using Directional Theory Toward 3 Variations (3 on the Enneagram): The confronting approval-seeker The first variation’s surface compulsion moves against people, while the underlying compulsion moves toward people. This explains why they may seem pushy and competitive, while underneath they paradoxically want the approval of others. These conflicting surface and deep compulsions make them seem deceptive, as they claim to have a strength of direction while denying the deeper compulsion that makes them follow the leadership of the society around them.

Using Directional Theory Toward 3 Variations (6 on the Enneagram): The compliant alignment-seeker The second variation’s surface and deep compulsions both move toward others. This doubly-embracing nature makes them more attached to their surroundings than any other type. Unfortunately, sooner or later they attach to a person or organization who is selfish, incompetent, malicious, or neglectful. When they realise they have done this, they often feel betrayed and afraid of their own instincts. Because their own trusting nature led to being hurt, they may develop defence techniques to mask their own compliance. Skeptical thinking, counterphobic lashing out, are examples of this type’s tactics which had their root in their doubly-compliant drives.

Using Directional Theory Toward 3 Variations (9 on the Enneagram): The withdrawn approval-seeker The final type moves away from others on the surface, but toward others underneath. Hence, they are caught between wanting to detach from others while still wanting to identify with others in the long term. Their habitual solution is to withdraw in non-threatening ways, to allow themselves to reconnect later. Generally they seem calm on the surface, but their underlying feelings resonate with the atmosphere that surrounds them, making them fairly sensitive to the emotional states of people around them. Like the first two types this one is prone to the mistake of unquestioningly taking on the values of others around them. Thus their behaviour often takes the form of passive acquiescence.

Using Directional Theory Against Aggression: also called "moving against people", or the "expansive" solution. Neurotic children or adults within this category often exhibit anger or basic hostility to those around them. That is, there is a need for power, a need for control and exploitation, and a maintenance of a facade of omnipotence. The aggressive individual may also wish for social recognition, not necessarily in terms of limelight, but in terms of simply being known (perhaps feared) by subordinates and peers alike. In addition, the individual has needs for a degree of personal admiration by those within this person's social circle and, lastly, for raw personal achievement. These characteristics comprise the "aggressive" neurotic type. Aggressive types also tend to keep people away from them. On the other hand, they only care about their wants and needs. They would do whatever they can to be happy and wouldn't desist from hurting anyone.

Using Directional Theory Against 3 Variations (2 on the Enneagram): The embracing power-seeker The first of these types have compulsions move that toward others on the surface, but against them underneath. This explains how they can be warm, helpful, and even seductive on the outside, while harbouring a hidden agenda and a strong will underneath. This willpower is masked by their embracing exterior; hence, they seek power through other people, rather than through direct force. They may befriend powerful people, exerting influence as the "power behind the throne". All power-seekers have a strong sense of ownership, which often comes across as a possessive tendency. The possessiveness of this type applies to people; similar those that seek to possess information (hoarding), or physical resources (territorialism). The y often get particular credit for the universal human need to be loved.

Using Directional Theory Against 3 Variations (5 on the Enneagram): The withdrawn power-seeker This second type moves away from others on the surface, but against others underneath. Hence, they may seem apathetic and laconic on the surface, but underneath they are not as detached as they act. The power-seeking drive seeks control, and is fearful of being overwhelmed and losing control. The withdrawn types by definition conserve physical energy, and so they prefer intellectual or strategic endeavours as distinct from active labour. Like all powerseekers, they often acquire a "sphere" of influence and a strong sense of owning this sphere. The sphere is usually mental, as opposed to the social sphere and the worldly sphere.

Using Directional Theory Against 3 Variations (8 on the Enneagram): The confronting power-seeker This third type moves against others in both their surface and deep compulsions, hence it is the most aggressive type overall; the powerseeking compulsion being at its most obvious with their willpower, self-reliance, and possessive tendencies quite evident to others. As with, all the power-seeking types they tend to acquire a "sphere of influence", and in the case of this type, this sphere tends to be physical and worldly, as distinct from the intellectual and the social spheres. The terms "aggressive" and "moving against" often carry hostile connotations which really only apply to unhealthy or average states. In healthier states, the doubly-aggressive compulsion makes them particularly able to rise above incredible obstacles, giving them an unusual ability to acquire a heroic stature.

Using Directional Theory Away from Detachment: also called the "moving-away-from" or "resigning" solution or a detached personality. As neither aggression nor compliance solve parental indifference, Horney recognized that children might simply try to become self-sufficient. The withdrawing neurotic may disregard others in a non-aggressive manner, regarding solitude and independence as the way forth. The stringent needs for perfection comprise another part of this category; those withdrawing may strive for perfection above all else, to the point where being flawed is utterly unacceptable. Everything the "detached" type does must be unassailable and refined. They suppress or deny all feelings towards others, particularly love and hate.

Using Directional Theory Away from 3 Variations (1 on the Enneagram): The confronting ideal-seeker The compulsion of this type moves against others on the surface, but away from others underneath. This is why they may outwardly seem quite efficient and engaged, yet underneath they are thinking more about some ideal world that they are ultimately trying to create. Ideals are descriptions of best possible worlds, and their ideals are filtered through their confronting exterior, which is proactive and practical. Hence, their ideals are active and practical, involving rules, principles, morality, truth and justice. Like all the inspiration-seekers, their ideals are essentially infinite. Everything, no matter how good, orderly, or just, can always be better, more orderly and more just. Like all the ideal-seekers, this type can become extremely frustrated, because the world chronically falls short of the ideal. Although they could relax by setting reasonable limits, they resist this because they can’t bear the things they most live for, might be unattainable.

Using Directional Theory Away from 3 Variations (4 on the Enneagram): The withdrawn ideal-seeker This type’s surface and deep compulsions both move away from the environment, making them the most introspective, individualistic type of all. This doubly-withdrawn compulsion gives them an unusual freedom; they are psychologically less bound by the real-world constraints that other types feel. This freedom makes them highly original and creative, and highly attuned to the emotional nuances that other types block out in order to deal with practical life. However, this freedom also gives rise to this type’s self-absorption and alienation from ordinary life. Like the other ideal-seekers, they seek a utopian ideal that makes reality forever seem inadequate. All the ideal-seekers feel a chronic sense of "something missing", which in the case of this type applies to their inner life. Their ideals are withdrawn and intensely personal, making them the romantic idealist as opposed to the practical idealism others.

Using Directional Theory Away from 3 Variations (7 on the Enneagram): The embracing ideal-seeker This type embraces the world on the surface, but moves away from it underneath. So while they seem focused on enjoying the real world, their mind is actually attending to a glorious fantasy of how things could be even better, and their unbounded fantasies make the real world seem forever inadequate by comparison, leading to a chronic feeling of having "missed out" on something. However, their disappointments are often hidden behind their embracing exterior, which has a large capacity for positive, appreciative emotions. Like the other ideal-seekers, these are satisfied only with the best of whatever they become interested in. But, because they have so many positive feelings for so many things, they may start to define "best" in terms of quantity rather than quality. Their inspiration-seeking qualities are under-recognized, because many view them as a glutton, seeking merely to consume everything in sight.

Key Questions 1. Twelve Angry Men demonstrates the weaknesses of the jury system. Do you agree? 2. In the play, Twelve Angry Men, guilt or innocence of the accused is never resolved. Does this matter? 3. Twelve Angry Men is best interpreted as an attack on the Jury system do you agree? 4. Despite questioning the ultimate fairness of the jury system, Twelve Angry Men is, at heart, a tribute to this system. Discuss. 5. “We have reasonable doubt, and this is a safeguard that has enormous value in our system. ” To what extent is reasonable doubt alone to be an effective safeguard? 6. Twelve Angry Men asserts that justice is more important that truth. Discuss 7. The 8 th Juror’s greatest achievement comes not from reasoning and logic, but from his ability to reach those who disagree with him? Discuss. 8. The 3 rd Juror is the most flawed, but also the most realistic of Rose’s characters. Discuss.

Key Questions 9. It is the dialogue in the play, rather than the setting which is the greatest source of tension. Do you agree? 10. The 8 th Juror’s heroism lies in the individual courage and integrity he displays. 11. The 11 th Juror believes that jury duty is such a “remarkable” aspect of the democratic process. Why does he value it so? 12. Juror 10 is the most frightening character in the play. Do you agree? 13. Rose has called this play Twelve Angry Men. What is the significance of this? 14. Rose acknowledges. . . “In a way, almost everything I wrote in the fifties was about Mc. Carthy. ” To what extent is the historical period relevant to his play? Discuss. 15. Twelve Angry Men shows that democracy is an individual concept. Discuss. 16. The 8 th Juror shows that democracy and justice must be the responsibility of each and every individual. Discuss.

Key Questions 17. The relationship between 3 rd and 8 th jurors is the most important element in 12 Angry Men. Discuss 18. 3 rd juror says that ‘everybody deserves a fair trial’. Does the defendant in this case get a fair trial? 19. Twelve angry men shows that personal experience is the strongest factor influencing human decision-making processes. Discuss. 20. In 12 Angry Men, the characteristics of gentleness, empathy and rationality are valued above all else. 21. The 8 th juror has no character flaws just as 3 rd juror has no redeeming features, Discuss 22. 10 th juror says ‘what you want to believe you believe’. How does 12 Angry Men show that we believe what we want to believe? 23. Twelve Angry men takes place in ‘real time’. How does Rose use this structure to strengthen his examination of the jury system. 24. Twelve Angry Men is a play about the impossibility of certainty. Discuss.

Class Task You are to create a television program (Investigative report) based on the events at the heart of the play, 12 Angry Men. You should focus on four areas : a)The background of the defendant b)The case against the defendant c)The skills of the prosecution and the defence d)The processes in the Jury room e)The critical learning that can be drawn from this Remember this is not a re-enactment of the play but a probing of the play. You will need a presenter, interviewers, interviewees and commentators. This is to be filmed and produced as a 30 minute special. You will need to assume an American format for this as it is possible to interview jurors after the event in their system. You will have two weeks to complete this task – most of the work will need be done out of class-time.