Prejudice In Twelve Angry Men, Written By Reginald Rose

This detachment within the Juror, ignoring the life of another person, and choosing not to vote without spending the time to discuss the situation, which may have ended up with the unjust death of an innocent boy. Juror 7 immediately brushes off the severity of the situation, relating to a matter of “anything” when it is in fact anything

They don’t know what truth is” (Ross 59). When Juror 10 says these things we can see how his prejudice affects his ability to discover the truth. Many of the other jurors show no real sign of bias when discussing the innocence or guiltiness of the kid. For example, near the end of the play Juror 4 states, “I still believe the boy is guilty of murder. I’ll tell you why.

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.

The play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose the jury decides whether or not the boy is guilty of murder in the first degree. Juror Eight votes not guilty because, he needs more evidence. Juror Eight is compassionate, when all the other jurors voted the boy guilty. He tenderhearted proclaims that voting him guilty isn’t easy he implies, “Look this kids been kicked around his all his life.” Juror Eight doesn't want to just send the boy off to prison without further investigation.

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

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

Daja McLaurin Benton TA: Yiwen Dai Communications: 250 1 April, 2016 12 Angry Men Assessment After viewing the movie 12 Angry Men the group was able to implement the ideas of group think immediately during the start of the movie. Since the men briefly established a relationship from the time of witnessing the trial to start of deliberation n the empty room and reaching a unanimous decision, they found that all of the men initially achieved a verdict of guilty accept for juror 8. After this surprising decision the men began to show their true colors and distinguish how one may believe something and another juror may believe another. The group takes time in pleading individual opinions while deciding on the guilt or innocence of a young boy

Juror 3 believes that all youth are dangerous and immature, encouraging how personal prejudice obscures the truth, but later on realises he’s wrong. ‘I told him, I'll make a man out of you.’ Throughout the play juror 3 is stuck on the belief that the ids ‘ Is guilty’ this belief prevents juror 3 from believin the facts that are presented to him. Juror 3 had an argument with his son which made him flee from home. ‘Its the lids, the way they are nowas=days.

Jury duty is often seen as an option people are seeking to avoid at times. However, jury duty should not be seen as a negative, but rather jury duty should be seen as a chance for a civilian to do their part in contributing to justice. Twelve Angry Men is mainly about twelve men coming together to discuss and argue whether a young man should be put on the death penalty, the play continuously makes it a point to make the jurors have a hard time deciding a final verdict. Jurors argued their side of what occurred with the defendant and the victim, some would change their answers or few would make a point of trying to convince the other jurors why the defendant is guilty. As the act progresses, the jurors finally realize one important detail of

This highlights the importance of being aware of one's biases and striving to be impartial when making decisions, especially in a court of law where the consequences of a wrong verdict can be severe. It's also important to note that the prejudices in the play are not limited to the jurors. The defendant in the play, who is on trial for murder, is a victim of prejudice from the larger society. He is from a different race and background from the jurors, and this difference contributes to their biases and mistrust towards him. The play suggests that these prejudices and biases are so deeply ingrained in society that even a courtroom, where justice is supposed to be served objectively, is not immune from

Throughout the whole play, Juror Ten remains stubborn in his decision that the defendant is guilty. Yet, at the end the finally sees that there is reasonable doubt (62). Interestingly enough, on the previous page Juror Ten is called out by Juror Four (60). The foreman also has some prejudice at the beginning of the case. He brings up another case that is similar to the one they are doing.

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.”

In 12 Angry Men, the movie begins in a courtroom where the case is being discussed by the judge, who seems fairly uninterested. The jurors are then instructed to enter the jury room to begin their deliberations. They take a vote and all but juror 8 vote guilty. The jurors react violently to the dissenting vote but ultimately decide to go around the table in hope of convincing the 8th juror.

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.