‘The 8th Juror says, ‘I’m not asking anyone to accept it. I’m just saying that it’s possible.’
How does the text differentiate between possible and probable?
The task afforded to the jurors of Reginald Rose’s play ‘Twelve Angry Men’ is indeed a ‘grave responsibility’ as
the judge forewarns, and separating the ‘facts from the fancy’ proves an arduous task. As events in the
cloistered confines of the jury room unfold, despite the first vote, it becomes clear that a not guilty verdict is
not only possible but probable and reasonable, once reason and logic are applied. Whilst there is initially clear
opposition to Juror Eight’s suggestion “Suppose we’re wrong?” the jurors eventually turn towards the
possibilities that are presented to them and assess the facts, not on the grounds of their own personal
prejudice and experience, but rather with the cool level reasoning of probability. Through these deliberations,
Rose exposes the unfairness of searching for absolutes amongst a sea of possibilities, particularly in
circumstances where the stakes are so high, upholding the notion that one must always maintain ‘reasonable
doubt’.
In determining their votes the twelve jurors are tasked with the challenge to weigh possibilities against
probabilities and in doing so, gamble that the outcome they finally discern will see justice done. Although the
judicial system lays the burden of proof on the prosecution, presuming the defendant to be innocent, many of
the jurors are not so clear in their rationalising. It is only Juror Eight who sees clearly that the case against the
defendant is laden with reasonable doubt and that other possible interpretations of the ‘facts’ presented by
the prosecution exist. His initial attempts to convince his peers though seem to fall on deaf ears and despite
his idealistic and righteous statements of “it’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die
without talking about it first”, he too concedes to gamble on probability. Having presented a series of possible
alternatives to the other jurors, Juror Eight compromises that “If there are still eleven votes for guilty, I won’t
stand alone.” Whilst his actions seemingly subvert the integrity of the judicial process, gambling the fate of the
defendant on the probability that his arguments have been successful on at least one other juror, the risk
proves worthwhile. When Juror Nine assents, “He doesn’t say the boy is not guilty. He just isn’t sure…The boy
on trial is probably guilty. But I want to hear more” it becomes clear that the uncertainty created by the
possibilities that have been raised have ensured that the judicial process will run its course.
In doing this though, Rose also exposes a fundamental flaw of the judiciary process through the jurors’
tendency to allow personal prejudice to “obscure the truth” and prevent them from accepting the possibility
of reasonable doubt. Again Juror Eight is particularly mindful that the “facts may be coloured by the
personalities of the people who present them.” He also recognises that truth is an elusive concept that even
when theorised through possibility and debated into probability, “(I) don’t really know what truth is.” The role
of the jurors is merely to discern what is possible from what is probable, though their judgement on this is
often impeded by the experiences and prejudices that they carry with them. Juror Ten’s xenophobia prevents
him from distinguishing fact from opinion, “Let’s talk facts. These people are born to lie” he opines. Similarly
Juror Three’s experiences with his son blind him to the probable reasoning of the other jurors as he obstinately
clings to his guilty vote, “That goddamn rotten kid. I know him. What they’re like…How come I’m the only one
who sees?” Rose acknowledges that the judicial process is imperfect, that twelve random strangers will not be
infallible in their ability to separate emotion from reason. The possibility that in every jury room exists an
eighth juror to raise possibilities and challenge probability though, balances these odds and it is this that Rose
holds up as the legitimising component of the system.
Juror Eight repeatedly asserts that he is only toying with a possibility, but is shunned by the others who state
the improbability of his views. As he systematically questions the case of the prosecution “It’s possible that the
boy lost the knife…it’s possible,” he goes on to tactfully concede, “I’m not asking anyone to accept it. I’m just
saying it’s possible.” Contrastingly, Juror Three is determined to think only in absolutes guided by his own
emotion fuelled reason, shouting in reply as the possible coincidences about the murder weapon are debated
“And I’m saying it’s not possible.” Such inflexibility in thinking is revealed as precarious and foolish by Rose
throughout the play. Juror Eight who makes a similar statement later in their discussions about the old man
who heard the defendant threaten his father, reasons thoughtfully to his conclusive statement “It’s not
possible that he could have heard it” and is shown to be the more convincing for it. That Juror Three and also
Seven and Ten are not so discerning in their thinking, eventually marginalises them from the other jurors
whose own convictions about the defendant’s guilt appear to have been made through more reasoned
judgement. Juror Four for instance is stoical in his assessment of guilty and one of the last to concede to
reasonable doubt, tolerating Juror Eight’s possibilities but rejecting them as “not very probable”. That Juror
Four is able to rationally distinguish between possibility and probability is applauded by Rose whose purpose is
not for the twelve jurors to necessarily emerge with a not guilty verdict but rather to undertake a process to
deliberate “honestly and thoughtfully”, to discern possibility from probability.
Determining the ‘facts’ from the ‘fancy’ is not as simple as it might seem, and the justice process requires the
men to deliberate with objectivity, to place reason and logic above emotion and opinion. The two possible
verdicts are definitive in guilty or not guilty, though with the first vote it becomes clear that the ‘safeguard’ of
the system ‘reasonable doubt’ is to receive a genuine workout. As Juror Eight begins to mount his case of
possibilities, beginning with the witnesses “Supposing they were wrong?” the first of many alternative theories
is given. He initially stands alone though, tolerating the derision of his peers as they acquiesce that the facts
laid in court are the absolute truth. Unknowingly, Juror Twelve whose later indecision causes him to be the
subject of some ridicule, recognises a flaw in such complicit acceptance, saying “This isn’t an exact science.”
The irony of course is that, if the process were as exact and accurate as the Jurors would believe the role of a
jury would be obsolete and it is this that Rose vehemently defends through his play. It is the jurors, led by
Juror Eight who bring to light the “little things” that the defence did not and it is these possibilities,
manipulated and reasoned into probability and eventually reasonable doubt, which ensures the validity of the
verdict. The play ends without ever learning whether or not the defendant is guilty or innocent, despite the
verdict of the jury, strengthening Rose’s purpose to defend the role of the jury as a legitimate means of
obtaining justice for their ability to see the possible and make it probable.
‘Twelve Angry Men’ vindicates the role of the jury in the judicial process for their ability to differentiate
between possibility and probability. Led by Juror Eight who remains convinced of reasonable doubt but
accepting of the possibility that ‘He does not know, and never will’, the jurors ensure the honest and
thoughtful deliberation of the defendant’s case. Their supposing of what did, didn’t, could and should happen
exposes the possibilities that go unsaid in the courtroom. That their deliberation as to the probability of each
leads to a not guilty verdict, does not assume the defendant is necessarily innocent though. Rather in
acknowledging the possible that he is, Rose’s twelve angry men, ensure the integrity of the process.
Sample 2011