Twelve Angry Men
Compare the ways in which twelve angry men and Montana 1948 highlight the obstacles which must overcome if justice is to be defended
Comparative essay for year 11
“Montana 1948” by Larry Watson and Reginald Rose’s play “Twelve Angry Men” both explore the fragility of justice. Whilst justice does not prevail in the novel, both texts to different extents explore how power can be used to create truth. Both Watson and Rose create worlds in which the white men abuse power in order to subjugate the minority. Additionally, the environments, although vastly different, are prone to corruption as power is used to manipulate truth. What essentially divides the play and novel however, is the degree of power given to the protagonists to seek the truth.
Rose and Watson contend that race can place you in a position of power and allow you to distort the truth. Privilege in Montana is founded in white supremacist beliefs that encourage prejudice and bigotry towards Native Indians. They are viewed as ‘red meat’ and ‘ignorant’ in Mercer County. A retreatment from the truth is also evident because the victim in native which highlights a lack of regard. This is evident when Wes is reluctant to pursue an investigation because ‘maybe she got it wrong’ and he ultimately wishes that Gail ‘hadn’t told the sheriff.’ Watson illuminates how privilege can cause ignorance and the creation of untruths. Julian highlights this with his vehement belief that ‘screwing an Indian. Or feeling her up or whatever. You don’t lock up a man for that, which enables Frank to be ‘buried without scandal.’ Rose conveys a similar message to Watson, that a lack of understanding towards a minority fosters unfounded beliefs. Likewise, Rose suggests that Jurors such as 1O, 4 and 3, are men who have been privileged enough to never experience poverty, hold prejudice against those who have.
Thus, Rose confirms that ‘it’s hard to keep prejudice out of a thing like this. And no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth.’ Similarly to the Hayden family, many jurors believe the accused is not worthy of justice, which displays an inherent failure in the justice system. This is because they judge the boy from being from a ‘slum’, which is a ‘breeding ground for criminals’ that they must ‘smack down’. As in Montana 1948, it leads to untruths being highlighted as fact, which confirms that the jury system is not operating as intended. This is because the men have ‘personal feelings’ about the case and are initially unable to see reasonable doubt as a result. Unlike the text, it is overcome which proves that justice can prevail. This, Rose stresses is the ‘remarkable thing about democracy’. Bigoted generalizations in both texts come into conflict with reason and logic and it is made clear that in order for democracy to be maintained, objectivity must triumph over this sort of prejudice.
