The same applies for 12 angry men (Lumet, 1957); we see the main characters were mainly affected by their backgrounds. Jurors 10 and 3 were both affected by their prejudices formulated through background environment. 10 and 3 based their decisions on prejudice rather than informed evidence. They were mainly affected by the difference in classes and different social statuses. Juror 3, coming from a different social status –family status-, had a different point of view than others about boys. He believed the boy was guilty because he had a strained relationship with his son that caused him to formulate a generalization that all boys are bad and that the crime was very possible. Juror 10, being raised in a relatively higher class – as inferred from hating slums- was raised to see slum people as criminals just for his prejudice that most slum population are criminals he believed the boy was guilty. Juror 5 in contrast was raised in slums and thus had different views about them. Juror 8 was a big example as well - although we cannot here tell much about background of juror 8 as it was sparingly mentioned in the movie-. It appears from the context and arguments provided by Juror 8 that he was affected by his background beliefs in his decisions. One belief that affected his decision was the belief that putting someone to death penalty is big enough to deserve approaching evidence again to insure it was correct. Without that background belief he would not have decided to go against