In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the jury room serves an essential purpose towards the narrative and syntactic structure of the work. Appeals to emotion, logic, and ethics are deeply ingrained within the confines of the courtroom. The main philosophical ideologies arise through the respective perceptions of each juror. Rose highlights some literary aspects in presenting the jury's line-up. Discussions and debates cause particular concepts to feel supported or isolated. This complexity brings humanity to each juror's point of view. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay Due to the intense nature of the case, a young African American man is accused of his father's death, the mob quickly becomes combative as the eighth Juror questions his colleagues' motives. Initially, the eighth juror was the only defender of reasonable uncertainty, but through his logical tactics he gradually manages to persuade 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 mentality, he gains natural sympathy from the audience due to his relatability. Through this, Rose can imply her ideals with the intention of garnering support from the subconscious. This is why the eighth juror is more of an embodiment of Rose's social and political views, rather than an overarching character. Specifically, in discussing the defendant's silence, the eighth juror assumes: “No one has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The accused does not need to open his mouth. This is in the Constitution. You've heard of it." This argument is structured in a deliberately logical and seemingly well thought out way, which fits the idea that it has been largely organized to correspond to a political philosophy. The most significant part of his statement is the mention of the Constitution followed by an immediate intellectual obstacle to his opponent's statement. The second juror remains completely agitated after his failed attempt to persuade the eighth juror, stating that “Well, of course I've heard of it. I know what it is. I, what I meant, well, that man is guilty. I mean, someone saw him do it. [He looks around helplessly]” This difference in syntactic arrangement precisely furthers the concept of Rose's calculated approach to his morality. The contrast increases the propensity to align with the eighth juror's perspective. Therefore, Twelve Angry Men manipulates points of view more obviously right and wrong. The third juror is a representation of prejudice, prejudice, acting on emotions and is the opposite of the eighth juror. Rose employs this as a tool for any counterarguments that might be made against his reasoning. For example, the third juror proclaims, "How do you know what you were in the room when the father was killed." This logic is immediately refuted by the fifth juror who explains that none of the jurors were present at the crime scene. This is a key distinction from a similar circumstance at the beginning of the play where the eighth juror confidently closes an argument, but the third juror cannot because of the obvious doubt he has when making his main points. This hesitation is exploited by his opponents due to the fast-paced story, they are, 1957.