Very thought provoking. I’ve never had to sit on a jury and decide someone’s life. I’m not sure whatever prejudice thinking I have (because everyone has prejudice thinking) would be able to be put to the side. Kept me I engaged and interest. Short story/play but worth the read ( )

I've seen the movie version of this several times and have enjoyed it every time. Reading the text of the play increases my enjoyment even more as the reader slowly gets to know each of the characters, even though no names or physical descriptions are provided other than their assigned juror numbers. Each juror is distinct and each brings their own experiences, biases, and baggage to the table. It's an action-packed story, even though the only action is verbal and it takes place entirely within one small jury room. I highly recommend it.

My thanks to the folks at the Catching up on Classics group for giving me the opportunity to read and discuss this and many other fine books. ( )

Os eternos elogios a esta teleplay, inflamados, são talvez respostas pavlovianas ao quociente politicamente correto do texto de Reginald Rose, cuja falha mais óbvia é a seguinte: jurados na vida real não podem levar à sala do juri suas próprias experiências, nem considerar evidências não apresentadas no julgamento. Se , porém, este júri tivesse agido de acordo com o procedimento legal correto, não teria havido fundamento para a trama. Nenhum drama, nenhuma catarse. Um tema intrigante nem sempre resulta em um clássico. Como se deve chamar um texto que inclui personagens clichês e implausíveis e uma reviravolta previsível (uma votação de 11 contra 1 mudando para 0 contra 12!)? Os júris existem para permitir que a letra fria da lei seja eventualmente contornada ou temporariamente suspensa. É disso que se trata TwelveAngry Men. Um juiz pode absolver um réu suspeito por falta de provas. Um júri pode condená-lo por "sentir a" culpa dele. A instituição do júri foi, portanto, uma forma histórica de "humanizar" as ações judiciais. Se os jurados fossem tão unidimensionais, estúpidos e fáceis de persuadir, os tribunais certamente deveriam mantê-los à distancia. ( )

Interesting observations of a jury and their deliberations. Why we shouldn’t have this system??? Exactly ( )

So I technically don't need this until the start of the second semester but I was curious about the book since it's such a short book. The book is written in script format and tells the tale of 12 angry jurors on the case of a boy who allegedly murdered his aggressive Father. 11 of the 12 voted for guilty, 1 disagrees and throughout the story, slowly wins them to his side. Usually, the Script format is confusing but I felt like it was a court transcript and it didn't degrade from the story.
You have to read each page carefully and I recommend reading the list of characters because Juror 1 is called a Foreman and so it can be confusing unless you read the cast of characters.
The book is the script of the play by Reginald Rose who also wrote this book.
It's short and not as hard to understand as you think and justice and injustice is a huge aspect in the story. ( )