12 angry men is a play written in 1954 by Reginald Rose. America's 1950's was an extremely racial tense period due to the Civil Rights Movement and enforced segregation. Rose suggests personal prejudice prevents jurors from completing their civic duty. Rose shows that juror 10 is a racially prejudiced individual and prevents other jurors from evaluating the evidence that is shown to them. Rose shows that juror 10 is a racially prejudiced individual and prevents other jurors from evaluating the evidence that is shown. Juror 10 has a personal prejudice against people of colour. 'These people are born to lie.' Juror 10’s beliefs are demonstrating examples of xenophobia. All jurors must side on either guilt or not guilty in order to complete the trial therefore Juror 10 rants on about how they’re ‘liars’, ‘pigs’, ‘murderers’. Without any explanation behind his beliefs, except for his personal prejudice brought …show more content…
Juror 3 believes that all youth are dangerous and immature, encouraging how personal prejudice obscures the truth, but later on realises he’s wrong. ‘I told him, I'll make a man out of you.’ Throughout the play juror 3 is stuck on the belief that the ids ‘ Is guilty’ this belief prevents juror 3 from believin the facts that are presented to him. Juror 3 had an argument with his son which made him flee from home. ‘Its the lids, the way they are nowas=days. Angry!’ Juror 3 yells and screams about his personal opinions preventing the jurors from thinking e=clearly, as their thoughts worsen in the hot environment. This effect prevents the jurors from deciding whether the kid isn’t guilty with ethical assumptions. Juror 3 has to be pressured by all the facts and other juror for him to realise the kid is not guilty. Family complications affect juror 3’s opinions therefore also affecting the other jurors. Juror 3 uses his personal beliefs to affect the emotions of the other