The Themes Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men

People's bias and predispositions can affect their opinion of different circumstances and different people. This is very evident throughout the play. After the first group vote and juror 8 votes not guilty, a discussion ensues. It is there that

Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’ is a play which displays the twelve individual jurors’ characteristics through the deliberation of a first degree murder case. Out of the twelve jurors, the 8th Juror shows an outstanding heroism exists in his individual bravery and truthfulness. At the start, the 8th Juror stands alone with his opposing view of the case to the other eleven jurors. Furthermore, he is depicted as a juror who definitely understands the jury system and defends it from the jurors who do not know it fully. At the end, he eventually successes to persuade the eleven other jurors and achieves a unanimous verdict, showing his

Juror 3 was basing his failed relationship with his son on the accused boy. The reason that he had such a bad relationship with his son is because when the boy was young, he ran away from a fight and Juror 3 said: “I’m going to make a man out of you or I’m going to bust you up into little pieces trying”. Later on, when his son was older, they got into a fight and Juror 3 hasn’t seen him since. This experience probably left him the impression that all kids take their loved ones for granted, and that they deserve severe punishments. Juror 3 is not the type to provide the sharpest evidence or information, but he is very determined to prove that the accused really did murder the victim. Juror 8 practically gives nothing away about his real life, probably because he did not want to add his own prejudices to the case. Juror 3 gave both his ill-mannered personality and bigotry away in the play.

Throughout the play, juror three interrupts others in mid-sentence and attacks their opinions hoping to quash them quickly before they pollute his own flawless opinion and doubt has a chance to creep into the dark crevices of his mind. For instance, when juror eight surprises the group with a second knife, juror three is already angry, too angry. His voice rises and shakes with an animal-like ferocity. "You pulled a real bright trick here. Now supposing you tell us what you proved here. Maybe there are ten knives like that one. So what?" Not thinking that this put a dent in his case, juror eights brains have overcome the emotions of juror three.

Juror 8 had many chances to change his opinion about the boy’s case, and yet he never did. Throughout this whole play, Juror 8 stood his ground and was

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

His troubled past with his own son was the cause of his disdain towards the young man on trial in the murder of his father. Juror three took the situation of the trial personally and therefore his own critical thinking was impaired by his basis. Once he realized he was not being attacked personally by the other jury members his ego broke down and he then changed his vote to not

The jurors are transformed by the process of deliberating. Eleven men voted guilty because of their prejudices, fears, laziness and insecurities, but they are eventually persuaded by reason to give up these limiting beliefs, to see the potential in the facts, and to find justice. The critical turning points in the jury votes occur, not when there is passion and anger, but when there is reasoned discussion, as the rational Juror 8 triumphs over the prejudices of his fellow jurors. The facts of the case do not change, but the jurors come to see the facts differently, and change by the process they go through. Despite the hostility and tension created in this process, the twelve men end up reconciled, and justice is done.

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.

A story that takes place during summer in a blazing hot jury room, filled with twelve hot-tempered men, is the defendant really guilty? In 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, a young boy is accused of killing his own father ruthlessly with a knife. It is now the duty of the twelve jurors to corroborate and come up with a fair verdict. Some jurors uses emotion to deal with the case, while others uses logic and provided strong evidence to support their claim. Juror Four and Juror Eight are similar in the way that they are both open-minded, take the trial seriously, and they also uses logic to analyze problems.

Juror three is a stubborn and short-tempered person. Juror three made solid sentiments in the beginning, which actively kept him involved in the discussion but he started losing control as the discussion continued. Because he disliked Juror eight, the argument between them strengthened the discussion. His loud and demanding personality made jurors go against his claim because his rage was intolerable by others. Later in the discussion, it was also revealed that he had a poor relationship with his own son, which led to believe that this was one of the causes to his intolerance against the suspect. When Juror three understood that he is only presenting an insight of his feelings regarding his own son onto the suspect, he changed his decision.

From the film, juror number three started to monopolize the ending of the case talk about his personal situation with his son. During that period of the film, the movie was centered on his situation. Different times throughout the film, these two jurors wanted to take over the decision to the jury as to accomplish their personal interest. In addition, juror number eight shows natural leadership within the group keeping everyone in the group together. We also see that juror number one wants to become a leader for this group but becomes ridiculed by the other members.

Plot: “Twelve Angry Men” is an interesting and exciting jury-room confrontation in which an "open and shut case" becomes strenuous as twelve strangers scuffle for answers. The trial involves a nineteen-year-old boy, who is suspect of killing his father in a late-night altercation with an extraordinary knife. His fate now lies in the hands of 12 jurors, each with his own determination to solve the case and reveal the truth. As the session takes its course, evidence becomes scrutinised, tempers rise, and the jury room erupts in a shouting brawl because one such juror finds reasonable doubts in the two testimonies that were deemed credible enough to convict. In his fight for an acquittal, the singled out juror found that the

The manner that both jurors eight and three approached the case was quite interesting to observe, while through out the entire film. It cultivated very well the different personalities of both jurors and gave such an important piece to the film. Juror eight as described by Reginald Rose, was more of a “Thoughtful, gentlemen. Who sees many sides to every question and constantly seeks the truth”(III). It is very obvious of his thoughtfulness for this case in comparison to the other eleven jurors, in contrast to the other eleven jurors when the initial vote was taken, they all didn’t take the vote to be very serious due to the lack of thought given. Even before the initial vote was taken, juror eight had already been thinking into deep thought of the case, and it is demonstrated when the foreman says “The gentleman at the window, How about sitting down?” (9). This does not only show his respect, but also shows the type of person he is and what he will be for the case. In caparison juror three is described by Rose is a “Strong, very forceful, extremely opinionated man, who is intolerant of opinions other then his owns”(II). Through out the film it can be noticeably seen the way juror three aggressively approaches the case, without thinking of other possibilities, but his own. As well in the film it can be seen how the camera angles close up on his face of anger portraying him as aggressive, which is opposite of juror eight’s personality.