Prejudice in 12 Angry Men Essay

Juror number 10’s other fatal flaw is his sense of classism. Due to the fact that the boy was raised in the slums, he automatically thinks that the boy is a thug. He says that there is not one of them who is any good and that they are wild animals who are against them. His generalization with a classicist mind set leads him to believe that all people who are raised in the slums are soon to be hooligans. In addition, his stubbornness to accept the theories of the other jurors only crippled the jury.

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.

Twelve Angry Men takes you into a day in the lives of twelve jurors in a New York City courthouse. In the hands of the jurors lies the fate of a young man accused of stabbing his father.

Juror number two was timid when it came to speaking his mind. At the beginning, he agreed with everyone else and voted guilty. But after a while, he was able to speak against the others and changed his vote to not guilty. Juror number three is rude, stubborn, loud, straightforward, and unmannered. He was extremely hard headed when it came to this case and he made himself strongly believe that the boy was guilty until the very end. Juror number four was extremely logical when it came to this case. Every time he spoke, he would base things on the facts rather than the ‘what ifs’. Both jurors numbers five and six were more like observers and kept an open mind to things. But juror number six had respect for his elders because when juror number 3 interrupted juror number 9, he stood up for him and asked for him to continue speaking. They talked only when they thought necessary or when spoken to. Juror number seven

Twelve Angry Men, a play by Reginald Rose, was written in 1955 at a time when America was involved in a cold war with communist countries. It shows the strength of a deliberative process that enables individuals, who have “nothing to gain or lose,” to reach a verdict. In the American jury system “everybody deserves a fair trial” and in Twelve Angry Men the defendant gets a very fair trial. All the jurors have their own opinions on the case but in the end a decision is made. The jury, and the audience, never discovers if in fact the defendant did murder his father. His guilt or innocence seems to be almost

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

Therefore, other jurors believe that after his acts of anger, he is over the top and their trust in his thoughts begins to waver. Regardless of the majorities vote, juror three’s vote remains unchanged from guilty because of his highly opinionated attitude and prejudiced ways. Juror eight’s bigoted traits and statements eventually cause all the other jurors to leave him for juror eight’s

The classic 1957 movie 12 Angry Men delves in to a panel of twelve jurors who are deciding the life or death fate of an eighteen year old italian boy accused of stabbing his father to death. The twelve men selected as jurors are a diverse group, each coming to the table with their own socioeconomic backgrounds, personal experiences, prejudice’s, and all of this plays a role in the jurors attitudes and/or misconceptions of the accused young man. How each of the jurors, all but Juror Eight played by Henry Fonda, experiences and personalities impact their original vote of guilty is clear at the beginning of the movie with the first vote. However, from the start, Juror Eight displays confidence, and demonstrates leadership abilities utilizing

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.

Reginald Rose’s play ‘12 Angry Men’ entirely takes place in a small New York City jury room where 12 male jurors have convened to decide the verdict in a homicide case. The verdict of this case will decide if a young boy will be charged with murdering his father, with a switchblade knife, on the first degree. The film shows us nothing of the trial itself except for the judge 's perfunctory, almost bored, charge to the jury where he reminds them that they must base their unanimous decision of “guilty” or “not guilty” on whether or not there is “reasonable doubt” in their minds as to the guilt of the accused. His tone of voice indicates the verdict is a foregone conclusion. We hear neither prosecutor nor defense attorney, and learn of the

He plays the role of 'appointed leader', or the individual who is assigned the leader position from the onset. A simple man who clearly does not understand the complexity of the task that lies before him but is trying to do everything not to let anyone else find this out. He appears at ease only once during the film ' when he talks about football. He has the misfortune to be selected Foreman of the jury ' a task he clearly does not enjoy. Juror #2 is a small, quite man who is clearly unaccustomed to giving his own opinion much less to expecting his views to be of any importance. In his subdued 'observer' and meek 'information giver' role, No. 2 apparently finds comfort in his job ' he is an accountant. Juror # 3 is probably the most complex personality in the film. He starts off like a pleasant self-made successful businessman, analyzing the case impartially, explaining the arguments well and is reasonably self-assured. As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate exploding in disbelieving anger and seems somehow to be personally involved with the case. His motivation for behaving as he does is revealed when he discloses that he's not on good terms with his own son. Illusions to his animosity toward youth were made when he says that kids today have no respect and that he has not see his son in over a decade. No.3 namely plays the 'aggressive', 'dominator' and 'blocker' roles. His personal baggage with his own son 'blocked' or

The 1957 movie version of 12 Angry Men, brings twelve people together with different personalities and experiences to discuss the fate of a young boy that allegedly killed his father. At the very beginning, many agree that the boy is guilty except for one man. Juror #8 votes not guilty and pushes to have the evidence talked through. After reviewing all the evidence carefully, the tables turned from guilty to not guilty. Each juror brought different experiences and personalities to the jury room. The two that were forceful with their opinions and their reasonings to decide either way we're jurors #8 and #3.

Juror 4 is able to remain calm and composed throughout the most stressful of situations. While Juror 10 exhibits racial outbursts; “They get drunk”, “That's the way they are!”, “VIOLENT!”, “These people are dangerous. They're wild. Listen to me. Listen.” Juror 4 sat through this entire scene without saying a word. It is only until Juror 10’s monologue is finished that Juror 4 speaks, calmly asking Juror 10 to “Shut [his] filthy mouth.” Juror 4 never discredits or implies anything towards the defendant and is always careful of what he says. After Juror 10’s tirade, Juror 4 tries to soften the impact created by 10; “Slums are potential breeding grounds for criminals.” He never attacks or hypes the situation at hand. He draws around ‘potential’ possibilities. Juror 4 initially had his doubts at the start of the case but was the only character that overcame his predisposition based on the analysis of facts and evidence. Rose’s character and only this character had the intelligence, confidence and persistence to keep his head in the tense moment Juror 10 created.

The year is 1984 and Darryl Hunt has just been sentenced a life in prison for the alleged rape and slaughter of Deborah Sykes. In 2004, he was set free after nearly 20 years behind bars because he was wrongly convicted based off false eye witness testimonies given during the trial (Blau, 2016). There was no physical evidence that connected him to the crime, yet, but based on the eye witness testimonies he was sentenced to a life behind bars for a crime he never committed. A somewhat similar scenario plays out in the film 12 Angry Men, when a jury is forced to deliberate on a life or death sentence for a boy who allegedly killed his own father. While this case has the evidence stacked against the accused boy, a lone member of the jury is not convinced and takes it upon himself to play devil’s advocate on behalf of the boy in the hopes of saving him from certain death. This becomes a high stakes battle of wits, when the juror meets opposition from the eleven other members of the jury, and is forced to bring the other jurors in opposition of the prosecution’s case against the boy.

Several of the jurors are shown to have serious personal biases that interfere with their ability to objectively look at the evidence of the case. The most prominent example is Juror no. 10, a garage owner, who from the very beginning is shown to be bigoted towards people from the slums. One of his first lines, in response to Juror