Opposing Thoughts in a Coexisting World
The foundation of life of this world, is coexisting with one another at the same time or in the same place in peace. In the story “Twelve Angry Men” written by Reginald Rose, he creates a theoretical question, if opposing ideas can coexist as well. Justice verses mercy and certainty versus doubt is the underlying conflict throughout the story displayed by each juror with their personal backgrounds either leading to condemning or saving a teen’s life. After act one, we see the struggle between each juror going from certainty and pushing for justice only to be later filled with doubt and demanding mercy. These opposing ideas disrupt the vary balance of peace leading for any coexisting out the door. The Idea of justice versus mercy is constantly questioned and played out by juror number eight and juror number three. The struggle for justice by juror number three using laws to fairly judge and punish the teen for his father’s murder is contradicted by juror number eight as he seeks for merciful truth. In act one, juror number three says, “I never saw a guiltier man in my life. You sat right in court and heard the same thing I did. The man’s a dangerous killer…”(Rose 3) followed by juror number eight explaining his not guilty vote saying, “… this boy’s been kicked around all his life. You know, living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine … I think maybe we owe him a few words, that’s all” (3). Juror number three is an extremely opinionated man who is intolerant of other’s opinions and goes along with the evidence presented before him ignoring the kid’s upbringing and any questionable facts. On the other hand, juror number eight is a man who sees all sides and constantly seeks the truth ready to question juror three on his beliefs and character all to show some mercy to the suspected criminal. Then comes uncertainty versus doubt causing tension and frustration not only in the room amongst each other, but in one self. As the arguments become more and more heated each juror’s mind is broadened and led to think and see outside the box. Juror number nine changes his vote saying, “… (Juror eight) chose to stand alone against us. That’s his right … He gambled for support and I gave it to him. I want to hear more …” (7). The older man’s testimony is soon questioned once juror number eight reenacts the story and flaws are then presented. Juror number three questions “Why would he lie? What’s he got to gain? Attention, maybe” (9). The ballots change again leaning half for both guilty and not guilty. Juror number three’s motives behind his certainty condemning the teen is called out by juror number eight calling him a sadist, “You want to see this boy die because you personally want it, not because of the facts” (12). He starts screaming “… I’ll kill him!” (12), leading juror number eight to question if he really meant that, like if the teens meant it when he supposedly screamed that to his father before his death. Act two ends with juror number three realizing his hidden doubts and other jurors silenced by their own. Justice is always a tricky subject which opposing ideas cannot coexist, but simply create outrage. Many witness it on social media outlets from unbiased reports and comments filled with either certainty demanding justice or doubts seeking mercy. He or she will always lean to either one because of their own personal backgrounds and beliefs. Opposing ideas are all around us, but learning to accept, that is the only coexisting there can be.

Work Cited
Rose, Reginald. “Twelve Angry Men”