Prejudice In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

Similarly ,In Twelve Angry Men Juror 8 is a smart and moral juror who is willing to stand against all the other jurors for what he thinks is right. He is the main protagonist who believes a boy accused with murdering his father deserves a discussion prior to a guilty verdict. Although all the other jurors initially voted guilty, juror 8 believed that the jurors should not “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”(Juror 8, 12). Throughout the play Juror 8 combats the pressure from the other Jurors to just vote guilty and manages to convince his fellow Jurors one by one that there in fact is “reasonable doubt”(Judge, 6) and convinces them to arrive at a “not guilty”(Juror 3, 72) verdict. Reginald Rose extols Juror 8’s pursuit of justice through his success. Not only did Juror 8 stand by his principles and have the courage to stand against all the other Jurors, he also had the wits to convince his fellow jurors to change their verdict. Through these actions Juror 8 brings justice to the courts of New York city saving the life of a young boy.

However, it isn't just the jurors' own personal prejudice that affects the way they vote. The prosecution of the boy led the jurors to believe that he was a guilty beyond all doubt. Also, the boy's representation was uninterested and uncaring. ‘I kept putting myself in the boy's place. I would have asked for another lawyer, I think. I mean, if I was on trial for my life I'd want my lawyer to tear the prosecution witnesses to shreds, or at least to try.' [Juror 8, page 14]

We aren’t told the background of the defendant so a comment like this flies over our heads since we don’t know who he’s referring to as “Those people” we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s classist since we are told by context clues that the boy is from a poor background. But once told that juror 10 is racist and rereading the quote it reveals so much more and we can now see 1 ignorant comment and 1 racist comment. The first instance of ignorance is when he completely dismisses juror 12s point, one that

Seeing his chance, he is firmly set on this boys guilt, seeing his own son's guilt in the accused. But it does not stop there.

A boy may die,” and changes his vote to “not guilty” which is another instance where the boy gets a fair trial. The 12th and 7th juror find it difficult to decide on which way to vote and therefore vote “not guilty” so that the boy is not “sent off to die.” The 12th juror’s lack of a defined and consistent point of view reflects America’s post war materialism. The 4th juror believed that the defendant was guilty for most of the play but then was the 2nd last juror to change his vote and admitted that he had a “reasonable doubt.” Although the audience never finds out whether the defendant was “guilty” or “not guilty” the jurors give the “kid from the slums” an honest trial.

In the movie 12 Angry Men, the jurors are set in a hot jury room while they are trying to determine the verdict of a young man who is accused of committing a murder. The jurors all explain why they think the accused is guilty or not guilty. Throughout the movie they are debating back and forth and the reader begins to realize that even though the jurors should try to not let bias cloud their judgement, the majority of the jurors are blinded by bias. The viewer can also see that the jurors have their own distinguishable personalities. Their personalities intertwine with each other to demonstrate how the jury system is flawed, but that is what makes it work.

12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are the jury for an 18 year old accused of murder. The judge states in the opening scene that it is a premeditated murder in the 1st degree, if found guilty will automatically receive the death penalty. The 18 year old male is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade, in their home. The prosecutors have several eye witness testimonies, and all of the evidence that they could need to convict the 18 year old male. In the movie it takes place on the hottest day of the year in New York City. There are 12 jurors whom are to decide if the evidence is enough to convict the teen of murder in the first degree. In the first initial vote it is 11-1. The only way that the jurors could turn in

Justice is the most important theme throughout this play. It proves that truth can’t be found without a struggle. In the play there was only one juror wanting to hear all the evidence in the court case. But when more facts were found out then some of the other jurors wanted to hear the rest of it, which would determine whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty. No one really knew if the boy was guilty but or not but they figured out that he was not given a fair trial. The defence barrister didn’t care because he wasn’t getting paid enough money to care. So that’s what the jurors thought it was up to them then, to repay the boy with justice.

Prejudice is an opinion in which is not based on any reasoning, and may cause harm. Prejudice can be seen just about anywhere, and it affects our daily lives. There are many different ways a person can show prejudice beliefs, but why do they believe things they have never experience? Some may say it’s something personal with one’s self that causes prejudice thoughts, or some may think it their surroundings contribute as a motive.

What is Prejudice ? Prejudice : is an unjustified or incorrect attitude towards an individual based solely on the individual's membership of a social group. In this particular part of West Memphis Arkansas, it was very quiet and very conservative place. They believed in southern values and they

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “prejudice” as 1) “injury or damage to a case at law or to one's rights” or 2a) “a favoring or dislike of something without good reason” 2b) “unfriendly feelings directed against an individual, a group, or race.”

Juror 3 is prejudice to young male adults because of his relationship with his son. Juror 3 argues that the boy is guilty of killing his father. Juror 10 is prejudice to people who came from the slums. Both of their arguments about the boy’s guilt is based on their prejudices. Prejudice can have positive or negative responses.

With everyone else against him, he argues that he has a reasonable doubt and can’t raise his hand and send a young boy to death because of that. Juror #8, the man who voted not guilty, rallies for support and gets it when he calls for a second vote. Over the course of an hour, the jurors heatedly debate the case by discussing the validity of the accused’s story, questioning the reliability of the witnesses, examining circumstantial evidence and combating other

“The Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is an examination of the American judicial system. Through depicting what happens inside the jury room in New York City, the author manages to illustrate the unique characteristics of each juror and presents the idea that facts can be different depending on the individual presenting it. The murder of an African-American male by his son sets the background of the story and leads to the discussions between the 12 jurors on whether the son is guilty or not. The play centers its stage on juror 8, the only juror and refuses to let the case end without a fair discussion on the case, and talks about his actions to persuade other juror into eventually changing their votes. Strongly influenced by its time period,

The right to a trial by jury is a core element of the United States Criminal Justice System. This right is guaranteed to all citizens by the highest law of the land: The United States Constitution. But are juries truly an effective means of securing justice? The movie 12 Angry Men provides commentary on this question with its portrayal of twelve jurors deliberating over a murder case. The jury initially seems bound to condemn the defendant, a young man of nineteen years, to the electric chair, but a single man, Juror no. 8 descents against the majority. Over the course of the film, tensions rise, and after much debate Juror no. 8 manages to convince the other eleven jurors to eventually vote not guilty. Through their debates and casual side conversations, we are shown the role of personal biases and group manipulation tactics that can impede with objective analysis and ultimately the attainment of justice. Thus, the Movie 12 Angry Men mostly serves to challenge the jury system as a means of securing justice by demonstrating the harmful effects of personal biases, the lack of dedication to the system, and the potential for manipulative tactics.