Prejudice In Twelve Angry Men, By Reginald Rose

In each vote the jury held, Juror #8, since the beginning, had a different view than everyone else because he was “not certain that the evidence was sufficiently clear” to make a final decision on the first vote (Cunningham 112). Even though everyone stood against him, he was “devoted to justice and act[ed] with integrity” no matter what the rest of the jury said to him (Aubrey). As Juror #8 continued making points and having the other jurors look deeper into the facts, the “wiser and more emotionally stable jurors” altered their verdict (Cunningham 112). For example, Jurors #4 and #11 changed their ruling when Juror #8 presented not-so-obvious facts, like the lady’s glasses markings. However, jurors with less empathy, like Jurors #7 and #10, never opened their minds to the possibility that the facts presented in court were false or altered.

Since Juror 10 is fairly outspoken, he outwardly speaks his biassed opinions, which intimidates some jurors, preventing them from speaking up. For example, when it is Juror 5’s turn to speak, he says, “I’ll pass it” (Rose 16). Later on in the play, it reveals that he chose to pass as he did not want to share his opinion because he is also from the slums. This makes him afraid to be judged, due to the prejudices and stereotypes. Since Juror 5 fears to be judged, this shows that

In a testament to both his own stubbornness and loyalty to the guilty cause, Juror #10 rebuffs every argument made by the not guilty party. Equally important, Juror #3 is willfully obtuse to the revelations made by the other jurors, marking him as the twelfth and final juror to vote not guilty. In the end, it takes the other men demanding his line of thinking for him to finally declare “not guilty” (Rose 115). Juror #3, being the main antagonist, is stuck in his pessimistic mindset and refuses to change his decision regarding the defendant’s fate. At times, it’s clear he is blowing off rationale for the sake of maintaining his guilty verdict.

Throughout the play, some jurors make comments that betray their biases. For example, one juror expresses disgust at the accused's background, suggesting that he is guilty simply because of his social class. Rose uses these moments to highlight how prejudice can cloud people's judgment and lead them to make unfair decisions. By shaming those who hold prejudiced opinions, Rose underscores the importance of objectivity and impartiality in the

Juror #3 is another member of the jury who holds preconceived notions that prevent him from seeing the truth. He is convinced that the defendant is guilty and refuses to consider any evidence that suggests otherwise. When one of the other jurors suggests that the defendant might be innocent, Juror #3 responds with anger, accusing him of being biased in favor of "those people. " He cannot separate his own prejudices from the facts of the case, and as a result, he is unable to reach a fair

Juror Ten’s role in Twelve Angry Men In Reginald Rose’s play Twelve Angry Men, Juror Ten’s derogatory views on people living in slums, represents how one’s prejudice can have a negative effect on the civil discourse of a jury. Throughout the play, Juror Ten displays biases against people from slums when he states that he’s “lived among ‘em all my life” and claims that one “cannot believe a word they say”(Rose 16). Juror Ten’s prejudiced claim creates a negative environment as the jurors start to argue with each other in an uncivil manner. Reginald Rose uses this interaction to convey the idea that one’s toxicity can have a negative effect on an entire group of people.

Juror Three is an angry, frustrated and a small minded person that wants this kid to be punished for the sole reason that 3’s own kid beat him and ran away, so three is a very hateful person to the kid on trial even though he doesn’t even know him. The vote is 11-1 in favor of not guilty, three is the only juror to vote not guilty, and he is persistent with the facts that the other jurors have proved could be false, so in a rant he yells at the jurors that they are wrong and the kid is guilty, until eight says something that makes him change in an instant. Juror Three states, “That goddamn rotten kid. I know him. What they're like.

Juror #10: Perpetuating Racial Stereotypes: Juror #10 exemplifies the embodiment of discrimination rooted in racial stereotypes. His prejudiced beliefs are revealed through offensive remarks and derogatory language, exposing deep-seated racism and bigotry. When he dismissively labels the defendant as "one of them," he perpetuates negative stereotypes and undermines the objectivity of the jury. Juror #10's discriminatory mindset is evident in his assertion: "You know how 'these people' lie.

For example, Juror 3 is convinced that the boy is guilty because he has a strained relationship with his own son. He projects his own feelings of anger and resentment onto the boy, and argues that he must be guilty based on his own experiences. Juror 10 is

This is a very fine boy.” (20) This juror is joking around at a time that is not very appropriate; they are not taking this case seriously enough and need to be taught how to act. The jurors in Twelve Angry Men are not responsible and should not be able to keep these very important jobs; these jurors are very unfair and have a lot of

Angry!’ Juror 3 yells and screams about his personal opinions preventing the jurors from thinking e=clearly, as their thoughts worsen in the hot environment. This effect prevents the jurors from deciding whether the kid isn’t guilty with ethical assumptions. Juror 3 has to be pressured by all the facts and other juror for him to realise the kid is not guilty. Family complications affect juror 3’s opinions therefore also affecting the other jurors.

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.

Based on the evidence gathered from the case everyone agrees the boy is innocent except one man, juror three. He eventually breaks down and consequently tells the truth. The viewers can tell that this movie/play is full of emotions. Each of these emotions can be described as something more than what comes to the eye.

Juror Ten announces his intentions very early in the play. He speaks loudly and forcefully from the beginning, clearly showing his racism and prejudice towards the boy. Juror 10 quickly votes guilty and asserts that the defendant cannot be believed because “they’re born liars”. Additionally, he claims that the “kids who crawl outa those places are real trash.”

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.