12 Angry Men Biases

Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a play about twelve men on a jury who are trying to decide the guilt or innocence of a boy who is charged with the murder of his father. Throughout the deliberation process, the men struggle to have a unanimous vote because of all their assumptions on the trial. Two of the jurors have biases which cause them to think one way or another, one more beneficial than the other. Hence proving a man's life experiences has an enormous effect on how he behaves and judges in situations like jury duty. The jurors have very strong feelings on the verdict the boy should get based on their own life experiences, causing very personal arguments during the play, but ultimately all the jurors concluded the boy is innocent.

When the men begin to discuss the origin of the boy, it is reviewed that the boy is from the slums. Both Jurors 10 and 4 are very insulting towards the slums during the beginning of the play, causing Juror 5 to step in once Juror 10 says, “I [do] [not] want any part of [people from the slums], believe me,”(l,21) by informing them “[he has] lived in the slums all [his] life.”(I,21) Later on, the men discuss the wound that killed the father. This wound is a downward stab wound made by a switch knife. Juror 5, growing up in the slums and having seen many switch knife fights, is able to give the other jurors information about how a switch knife functions. Aware

Juror 3 has a son whom he no longer talks to and holds a huge grudge against. When his son was a boy, he ran away from a fight leaving his dad(Juror 3) very ashamed. “[He] told him straight out ‘I [am] gonna make a man out of you or I [am] gonna bust you into little pieces trying.’”(l,21) His son got stronger, and once he was fifteen he hit Juror 3 in the face. From there on Juror 3 obviously holds a grudge against his son, and wants to get back at him. His thought is that he can get back at his son by sending this boy off to his death. He sticks to his vote of guilty throughout the play and tries to get others on his side, even when it is clear there is reasonable doubt. Towards the end of the play the jurors realize the women that testified must wears glasses, and could not have seen the boy murder his father, which is one of the key testimonies Juror 3 is making his claim out of. After recognising his vote of guilty is wrong, Juror 3 defends himself by saying, “How do you know what she saw?”(lll,62) The rest of the jurors decide there is reasonable doubt, but still Juror 3 blurts out, “I think he is guilty!” All of the other jurors know there is reasonable doubt, but up until the very last line Juror 3 sticks to his strong opinion of the boy being guilty, and finally angrily yells, “Not guilty!” This was only after he realizes no one is coming back to his side. Juror 3 is