The issue of prejudice is an important one in 12 Angry Men. The play focuses on the prejudices of the jurors and addresses how they could have overcome them. One instance of prejudice in Twelve Angry Men occurs when Juror 12 has animosity toward the environment in which the defendant was raised. He says, "Well, it's the element. They let the kids run wild. Maybe it serves 'em right." Juror 12 holds the opinion that an individual's childhood affects whether or not they develop criminal behaviours. However, regardless of the environment they were raised in, anyone could become a criminal. Juror 4's statement that "...the children who come out of slums are potential menaces to society," is another example of this. Here, he displays that he has a negative opinion of kids from underprivileged backgrounds. Anyone from any socioeconomic class can commit a crime, but Juror 4 believes the defendant is more likely to do so given his socioeconomic status. Throughout the play, prejudice is demonstrated; juror number three states, "That man is a dangerous killer. You could see it." The defendant is a person of colour, yet the jury consists entirely of white men. Juror 3 is currently evaluating the young …show more content…
An example of this would be when Juror 3 mentioned he hasn't spoken to his son in three years, so he is anxious to blame 'rotten kids' for all the world's problems. When his son was eight and walked away from a fight, he was ashamed. So, he beat him 'to make a man out of him.' He believes that his child is unappreciative of his dedication. Despite taking the trial personally, Juror 3 is the first to warn Juror 5 not to take things personally when Juror 10 criticizes children from low-income communities. Anger, frustration, and personal experiences can all affect their opinions and impair their judgment, potentially leading to an unjustified