Prejudice In The 12 Angry Men

You're not gonna tell me you believe that phony story about losing the knife, and that business about being at the movies. Look, you know how these people lie! It's born in them! I mean what the heck? I don't even have to tell you. They don't know what the truth is! And lemme tell you, they don't need any real big reason to kill someone, either! No sir! [Juror 10, page 51] This type of prejudice offended many of the other jurors, especially Juror 5 who is of similar race to the accused.

Ignorance and racism are seeded deep within the nooks and crannies of our society. While it may not be visible at first glance I can assure you, it is engraved in the back of the brains of a portion of our population. A literary example of such behavior can be found in Twelve Angry Men, By Reginald Rose. The book is set in a jury room where 12 men debate the innocence or guilt of a teenage boy accused of murdering his father. However, one of the Jurors (Juror 10) has racist beliefs that greatly affect the debate. Should men like Juror 10 be on a jury?

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.

The personality of juror # 10 was one of hatefulness and anger. This juror was prejudice against the kid because he was from the slums. Juror # 10 said something in the movie about not being able to trust people who are from the slums. Juror # 10 had several outbursts and had a heinous attitude through most of the movie. Juror # 10 was the one who did most of the talking, when it came to trying to convince Juror # 8 that the kid was guilty. There was another Juror that had a roundabout same type of personality coming into the juror’s room as juror # 10. The juror # 3 was also bitter and obstinate towards the others, specifically when it came down to several of the other jurors changing their opinion of guilty to not guilty. Juror # 3 became hot headed and very loud and obnoxious towards everyone. Both Juror # 10 and juror # 3 were only looking at the eye witness testimony,

The film uses juror three to demonstrate how past experiences can influence ones prejudice in decision making. Juror 3, who has a prejudice against the accused, and thinks the kid is under-privileged and doesn’t deserve a second chance, which is reason enough for him to conclude the accused is guilty. As the discussion continues as to the verdict of the trial, juror three grows frustrated and angrily refutes, “What is this? Love your under- privileged bother week or something? (12 Angry Men). Due to his past experiences with young men, he is ready to sentence the defendant to death with weak circumstantial evidence, grows angry as the other jurors question what he refers to as “facts” and claims “You can’t refute facts” (12 Angry Men) As all the Jurors except juror twelve get more and more frustrated by the slowed process, juror three begins to see through his prejudice, and disperses the other jurors interruptions by saying “Be quiet, we’ll all get a turn”(12 Angry Men). It finally becomes clear, he sees similarities with his son he had a falling out with several years ago, and puts this prejudice aside and excepts that the evidence is too circumstantial to convict a kid for murder, and sentence him to death.

It is the juror's responsibility to prove the boy guilty or not. Many of these jurors applied their biases to the way the boy grew up and was treated throughout his life. They have created false accusations that are not necessarily accurate. They argue that teenagers his age have no sense of morality or respect for their elders. Which could be a justifiable reasoning for the murder of his own father. Juror Three appears to be prejudiced towards the boy due to the fact that his own son resented him and moved out. It is not uncommon to develop an explicit bias after generalizing impressions from a personal experience and applying that to all groups of that kind such as age, religion, etc. As Juror Eight votes not guilty during a vote, the third juror becomes infuriated and disagrees while ranting about how the defendant is completely guilty due to evidence. Two different categories came into play as Juror Three expressed his feelings about his own son relating to the boy on

In this novel, twelve jurors are designated to choose the verdict of a case. A sixteen-year-old boy is accused of murdering his father. If the jurors’ verdict is guilty, then the boy will receive a death sentence. The chosen jurors are locked in a room to decide the verdict, guilty or innocent. At the beginning, only one juror chose to vote not guilty, for the sake of reasonable doubt. The juror made thought out points and persuasively changed all other other jurors minds. By the end, all jurors chose to vote not guilty, except one. This particular juror voted guilty because he compared the defendant to his own son, whom he had problems with. This prejudice blocked his mind, making him confuse facts with his own judgment.

Twelve Angry Men, is a play written by Reginald Rose. The play is about the process of individuals and a court case, which is determining the fate of a teenager. It presents the themes of justice, independence and ignorance. Rose emphasises these three themes through the characters and the dialogue. Justice is the principle of moral rightness or equity. This is shown through juror number eight who isn’t sure whether or not the boy is actually innocent or guilty, but he persists to ask questions and convinces the other jurors to think about the facts first. Independence is shown through both juror number three and ten. They both believe that the defendant is guilty until they both realise that they can not relate there past experiences with

From dictionary.com, prejudice is “Any preconceived opinion” (Prejudice), and is shown in several forms throughout the book. One example of prejudice is the judgement of another based on features. “The man before them was noble in appearance, and the shadows played across the planes of his face in a way that made their angles harden; his aspect connoted dignity. And there was nothing akin to softness in him anywhere, no part of him that was vulnerable. He was, they decided, not like them at all, and the detached and aloof manner in which he watched the snowfall made this palpable and self-evident” (Guterson, Snow, 412). Kabuo is perceived as distant, and so the jurors think that he is, in fact, separate from them. Another discriminatory action that is shown in the book is stripping a person of his individuality and assigning him to a larger, collective unit. This is shown through a conversation with some of the local gill netters. “‘The Islander is Miyamoto,’ said Dale Middleton. ‘Ain’t that right? The middle one?’ ‘The oldest,’ Ishmael Chambers explained. ‘Kabuo--he’s the oldest. The middle is Kenji. He’s working at the cannery.’ ‘Suckers all look alike,’ said Dale” (Guterson, Snow, 43). Finally, an entire group (as opposed to select, responsible individuals) may be assigned blame. “‘Fucking Japs’” (Guterson, Snow, 250). Ishmael says this, and in it Guterson shows how a person can blame an entire group for a single bad thing,

Angry! Hostile!” This causes him to not listen to the other jurors opinions and block out any idea of the defendant being innocent. His prejudice is further understood when he says “this kid is guilty. He’s got to burn. We’re letting him slip through our fingers here.” Juror #3 is only able to see the young boy on trial as a symbol of his own son and is therefore unable to look past his own anger towards his son and see the case for what it really is. It is only through the help of juror #8 does juror #3 finally let go of his personal prejudice and sees the truth about the case and changes his vote to not guilty.

Including from their own lives each juror has gone through a point in time were even they were stereotyped by the world. The jury has been convinced that the boy has been severely stereotyped through the whole case and court. The 3rd juror let the case come into his own life and he made his own opinion on the boy without even paying attention to detail, he reflected his own life in his argument with stereotypes (72). The lives of the jurors have all been affected by the acts of stereotyping and see the effects of it that can have on someone. A boy that at the beginning almost lost his life due to the people just looking at him was saved by the fact that the jury looked past all that.

The film Twelve Angry Men shows many social psychology theories. This film presents some jurors who must decide if an accused murderer is guilty or innocent. In the beginning, all but one juror voted for guilty. Eventually, however, they come to a non-guilty verdict. It shows how a various group of individuals react to a situation that no one wants to be involved in. Twelve Angry Men exhibits so many examples of the true power of informational social influence and normative social influence. According to informational social influence, individuals tend to comply with others because they believe that another individuals version of a situation is more valid than their own. Normative social influence is a type of social influence that leads to conformity. This theory seems to fit in along with this movie because of the way the juror’s decisional processes went. Informational social influence is aggravated by obscurity and doubt of situation, importance of being correct, time constriction, and presence of those recognized as professionals. Just within the first few minutes of the movie, social influence is shown. In the jury room, a heated debate is prevented by an initial vote. This vote, which was taken publicly, was vulnerable to normative social influence or conformity from the fear of seeming in submissive. An obvious feeling of doubt is presented as the jurors vote. This hesitance can be perceived as weak conviction swayed by the guilty majority’s influence. Time constraints intensify informational social influence and possibly helped play a role in causing some of the jurors to cast guilty, conformist votes. Majority influence and social impact theory generate conformity. These theories are relevant in the jury context and are relevant to an explanation of Twelve Angry Men. Social impact theory specifies the situational and personal factors that bring on conformity. Conformity is enhanced by the immediacy element of social impact theory which brings to belief that without anonymity conflict is increasingly difficult. Perception of norms is apparently a factor that also brings out conformity. Stereotyping and prejudice were rampant at the time Twelve Angry Men was filmed. The director and writers cleverly

An individual's past experiences can have an incredible impact on the way they think and behave for years to come. So, the past have a significant impact on an individual. In my own life, I have had past experiences that have affected me to be the person I am today. One example is, whenever I walked through the downtown part of Edmonton and I noticed a lot of homeless people lying around on the streets. I felt so bad for those poor people that didn’t have a place to live. They appreciate anything and everything they get. This really effects me and teaches me to be more grateful in life. And appreciate everything I have. In the play the 12 Angry Men, jurors 3, 5, and 11 prove that their experiences has affected who they are. I believe that juror 3’s family issues such as his problems with his son has affected him to become an aggressive man. Additionally, juror 5 has had a background of living in a slum all his life. Therefore, he tries to prove that not all people living in slums are criminals. Lastly, juror 11 struggles with others judging him because he is a European Refugee. This affected him by making him feel unconfident about himself and feels that the others jurors don't take his opinion too seriously.

As far as prejudice goes, there is one juror that sticks out the most as being the most bigot-like, that is juror #10. Many of his comments throughout the movie demonstrate a feeling of white supremacy, and no empathy towards the young man on trial, being that he is African American. In one scene he proclaims, “Well don’t you know about them? They’re a danger here. These people are dangerous. They’re wild. Listen to me. Listen to me!” Following that he continues to make more stereotypical comments about blacks, calling them drunks and saying that human life does not mean as much to them. After so many of his racist comments, the other jurors tune him out and disregard his opinions. This affects the overall communication of the group because it angers the other members and distracts from the goal at hand which is to come to a decision. We also see prejudice get in the way of solving

3. Social identity (10 points): What role(s) does social identity play in the movie? Discuss SID in relationship of the jury to the accused. (Define your terms and give two examples of how they apply).