12 Angry Men: Juror 4

By Orla Wilson
Why I chose this juror
I decided to do my project on Juror 4 because in my opinion I
feel that he is one of the best representations of justice in
the play.

Some may feel that the best representation of justice Juror

8, as from the very beginning he says that the defendant is
not guilty.

Juror 4 is actually the second to last juror to get on board,

but in this presentation I hope to explain my point of view to
you.
Character Description
Seems to be a man of wealth and position

Practiced speaker

Presents himself well at all times

Seems to feel a little bit above the rest of the jurors

Only concerned with the facts of the case

Appalled by the behaviour of the others

The Beginning

● Very much on the side of guilty

“We’re not here to go in to the reason why slums are breeding

grounds for criminal activity… the children who come out of slum
backgrounds are potential menaces to society.”

● Lacks compassion
● Facts
● Prejudice
● Result of affected background?
Relationship with Juror 3

Most part — shares opinion that the boy is guilty with 3

Differences:

● Juror 4 = more concerned with facts — little emotion

involved
● Juror 3 = projecting anger at son onto defendant — very
emotionally involved — tries to sway facts to support his
opinion.
Relationship with Juror 8

Up until very end — strongly disagrees with 8’s point of view

Differences:

● Juror 4 — Only interested in definitive facts

● Juror 8 — believes strongly in the power of reasonable
doubt
Juror 4 in Justice

Very factual and realistic — goes for the ‘sure thing’

Isn’t easily convinced or swayed against original thought

Relies heavily on the evidence in the case

● Tangible -- doesn’t involve feelings

○ Doesn’t leave room for interpretation

Immediately thinks guilty -- pessimistic

Final Verdict

After, with the help of his ‘followers’, Juror 8 had one by one
disproved each piece of evidence in the case, it finally came
down to eliminate the last witness.

● Used 4’s glasses to make his case

○ Made it very tangible for 4
● Caved to not guilty

“I’m sorry. I’m convinced. I don’t think I’m wrong often, but I guess
I am this once. There is a reasonable doubt in my mind”
Juror 4 = Justified?

While may be seen as prejudiced — actually mainly concerned

with the proper justice system

● Thoughtful and apprehensive about putting a murderer

on the streets
● Perhaps too liberal with saying he is guilty — pessimistic
● Deals with facts and evidence
 One recurring theme in 12 Angry
Relevance in Men is the idea that those who come
from privileged backgrounds can get
Today’s Society preference when it comes to
education, their rights and even
People of privilege getting preference
whether they are found guilty or not
in education
in court.
Do Privileged People get
Preference?
Juror 4 obviously comes from a privileged background and is
very well educated. The script even describes him as a man of
“wealth and position” and throughout the play he can be
perceived as condescending and pretentious to the other
jurors.

He automatically believes that the defendant is guilty because

of the fact that he is from the “slums”, but would someone of
“wealth and position” be treated the same way if the their case
was the exact same?
Do Privileged People get
Preference? (continued)
Juror 5 and 11 challenge this theory as one (5) grew up in the
slums and the and the other (11) is a refugee from Europe.

Both men seem relatively educated and have interesting

points of view. They add a compassionate voice to the jury as
they can somewhat identify with the defendant.
Privilege in Education
This warped perception that those with money should get
better opportunities than others can still be seen in the world
today.

One example can be seen in university fees, particularly in

America.

According to College Board, published tuition fees for

2017/18 at state colleges are an average of US$9,970 for
state residents, and $25,620 for everyone else. This compares
to an average of $34,740 at private non-profit colleges.
Privilege in Education

These large fees exclude those who cannot afford to pay,

leading to them not reaching their full potential and perhaps
even turning to crime.

Without the proper education, those who are not as wealthy

are deprived of opportunities that others can get without an
issue.

This is a serious issue of inequality in the world today.