Prejudice In The Way Of Truth In Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose

In the text, “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, tells a story of twelve jurors who are brought together to discuss a murder case, whether the boy is guilty or not, of killing his father. With majority of the men voting guilty 11 to 1, a dramatic climax or turning point happened, and changed many of the jurors’ vote. The author uses literary elements to express the central idea that, “Everyone is prejudice”. The central idea, that the author expresses, is that “Everyone is prejudice” by using literary elements. “Everyone is prejudice” means that people are alway judging others by their actions.

Character Traits of Juror 8 The play Twelve Angry Men demonstrates the significance of identifying character traits in order to better understand a character’s motivations. A character who is like me is juror 8 because he shows he cares by standing up for the boy on trial. For example, he said “Ever since he was five years old his father beat him up regularly” (Rose 17).

One person can make a difference in a situation. Although we all hate to be the odd ball, sometimes it’s good to show what we really think. In the play Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose demonstrates how the power of an individual in society can make a difference in someone’s life, which is represented though juror number eight. There would be no play without juror number eight. He was the one to make everyone think differently, to think twice about the boy.

Prejudice in this book is present and as a jury in the trial, it can bad for the accused in many ways depending on what the crime was committed. A man was murdered and the son of that man is the only one known to be with him that night yet claims to have been elsewhere. The jurors are the only ones to determine this guy’s future to be proven innocent, or falsely accused guilty by the preconceived notion of the juries. Only one jury stood out only because he knew the right for a fair trial is to be upon this man and as for everyone, the only one who hasn’t judged the boy in any way. Juror number three thought he was a slum as if any other slum would be, a criminal living trashy and even think they’re stupid.

While all of the other men have changed their vote to a not guilty verdict, the third jurors remains with his original belief. Even in the very end of the play, he acts hostile against the others trying to change his mind, in saying “Do you think I’m an idiot or something?” (Rose 72). One juror that seems almost impervious to argumentative fallacies and peer pressure is Juror 8. Juror almost displays the ideal juror, and the rest tend to mimic the flaws of the system.

I’ve known a couple who were OK, but that’s the exception”. When realization dawns upon Juror 10 that the other jury members are not as racist as he is, he makes a typical racist backpedal saying that a few people of colour are okay. “Most of ‘em, it’s like they have no feelings! They can do anything!”. At the peak of the heated argument between the jurors, Juror 10 begins shouting about his strong loathe towards people of colour.

12 Angry Men Jury Attitude Development The Juror's attitudes in “Twelve Angry Men” changes from Act one to Act three by caring more about the outcome of the case and less about going home. In the beginning, all of the jurors, save but one, Juror eight, voted guilty without ever caring about if the evidence presented was factual. Peer pressure seemed to be a large portion of this, seeing that a few of the jurors raised their hands hesitantly when asked to publicly vote for guilty. Juror seven voiced how he felt about this case, saying that the decision “better be [made] fast,” simply because he “got tickets to the Seven Year Itch.”

People tend to base characteristics of people pretty quickly; likewise, their personalities. Most people base their opinions on stereotypes. Reginald Rose and his play “12 Angry Men” demonstrate how people are quick to judge other people based on looks. In the movie all twelve jurors must decide if a young boy is guilty or innocent. At the beginning of the movie/play-write, only one juror, juror eight, decides the boy is innocent.

Twelve Angry Men “In a criminal trial, they are tasked with the responsibility of deciding based on the facts of the case, whether a person is guilty or not guilty of the offence for which he/she has been charged. The jury must reach its verdict by considering only the evidence introduced in court and the directions of the judge.” The movie twelve angry men set the scene of a typical murder trial of a young man who supposedly murdered his father. Jurors are selected from various backgrounds, cultures and professions. Twelve angry men showed the diversity of people ranging from bankers, poker player, parent and those raised in the not so sophisticated lifestyle of the ghettos.

This process continues throughout the course of the movie, and each juror’s biases is slowly revealed. Earlier through the movie, it is already justifiable to label juror 10 as a bigoted racist as he reveals strong racist tendencies against the defendant, stating his only reason for voting guilty is the boy’s ethnicity and background. . Another interesting aspect of this 1957 film is the “reverse prejudice” portrayed by juror

Have ever you realised that persuasion can sometimes be more effective on you than forcing an opinion on you? “Its very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth.” Is a significant quote cited from Twelve Angry Men. In the play Twelve Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose we can see this by the effect that Juror eight has on the rest of the Jurors.

The justice system that relies on twelve individuals reaching a life-or-death decision has many complications and dangers. The play Twelve Angry Men, by Reiginald Rose, illustrates the dangers of a justice system that relies on twelve people reaching a life-or-death decision because people are biased, they think of a jury system as an inconvenience, and many people aren’t as intelligent as others. The first reason why Reiginald illustrates dangers is because people can be biased or they can stereotype the defendant. The Jurors in Twelve Angry Men relate to this because a few of them were biased and several of them stereotyped the defendant for being from the slums. The defendant in this play was a 19 year old kid from the slums.

The movie “Twelve Angry Men” illustrates lots of social psychology theories. This stretched and attractive film, characterize a group of jurors who have to decide the innocence or guiltiness of an accused murder. They are simply deliberating the destiny of a Puerto Rican teenaged boy accused of murdering his father. Initially, as the film begins, except the juror Davis (Henry Fonda), all other jurors vote guilty. Progressively, the jurors begin trying to compromise on a point that everybody agree because the decision of the jury has to be unanimous.

The flaws of the American justice system exposed by the play Twelve Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, include Racism, Bias and the different definitions of Justice. Of the 12 Jurors in the play many of them have a bias towards the defendant, a hispanic boy. Rose expresses this to us through their words, language and facial expressions (younger son). Racism is another major theme throughout the plot especially expressed by major verbal conversations but accurate details, such as only white men deciding the fate of a hispanic teenager. Lastly, between the jurors there are different interpretations of justice.

Geometric Character Analysis When you look around the world at any given moment you see many different people with many different personalities and views of the world. Everyone has their own distinct and particular opinions, emotions, prejudices, and thoughts. No one is the same. The film 12 Angry Men not only shows the imperfections and advantages to the justice system it also shows all these different personalities too. The film writer, Reginald Rose, has 12 different juror with completely different personalities and prejudices about the topic at hand.