In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men, the jury room plays an essential role in the narrative and syntactic structure of the play. Appeals to emotion, logic and ethics are deeply rooted within the confines of the courthouse. The great philosophical ideologies arise from the respective perceptions of each juror. Rose emphasizes certain literary aspects when presenting the jury lineup. Discussions and debates give the impression that particular concepts are supported or isolated. This complexity brings humanity to each juror's point of view. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get an Original EssayDue to the intense nature of the case, a young African-American man is accused of his father's death, the crowd becomes quickly fighting as the eighth juror questions the motivations of his cohorts. Initially, the eighth juror was the only defender of reasonable uncertainty, but thanks to his logical tactics, he gradually convinces the others. For example, after explaining why he cannot morally vote guilty without further discussion, the ninth juror quickly comes to his support. This exacerbates the manipulative strategy employed not only by the eighth juror, but also by Rose. Following the idea that the eighth juror was originally isolated in his state of mind, he gains natural sympathy from the audience due to his relational nature. Through this, Rose can involve her ideals in an attempt to gain subconscious support. This is why the eighth juror embodies more of Rose's social and political views, rather than a general character. In particular, when discussing the defendant's silence, the eighth juror asserts: “No one has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. The accused is not required to open his mouth. It's in the Constitution. You've heard about it. This argument is structured in a deliberately logical and seemingly well-thought-out manner, consistent with the idea that it has been largely organized to fit a political philosophy. The most significant part of his claim is his mention of the Constitution followed by an immediate intellectual obstacle to his opponent's assertion. The second juror is completely confused after his failed attempt to convince the eighth juror, stating, "Well, of course, I've heard about it." I know what it is. I - what I meant - well, this man is guilty. I mean, someone saw him do that. [He looks around helplessly]” This difference in syntactic arrangement precisely reinforces the concept of Rose’s calculated approach to her morality. The contrast increases the tendency to align with the eighth juror's point of view. Therefore, Twelve Angry Men manipulates viewpoints to make good and evil appear more apparent. The third juror is a representation of prejudice, prejudice, acting on emotion, and is the opposite of the eighth juror. Rose uses it as a tool for any counter-arguments that might be raised against her reasoning. As an example, the third juror claims: “How do you know what you were in the room when the father was killed.” This logic is immediately refuted by the fifth juror explaining that none of the jurors were present at the scene of the crime. This is a crucial distinction from a similar circumstance earlier in the play where the eighth juror confidently ends an argument, but the third juror cannot due to the obvious doubt he has when he sets out his main arguments. This hesitation is capitalized by, 1957.