ipl-logo

12 Angry Men Prejudice Essay

731 Words3 Pages

Miah Archambault
12 lessons

Prejudice gets in the way of the truth affecting the amount of time the jury spent to vote. Many of the jurors do not bother listening to the truth or facts of the case, as they’re entitled to their opinion. This is evident in the way jurors #3 and #10 come to their decision the defendant is guilty. Juror #10 brings the most prejudice into the room, as his decision was established the moment he saw the young boy from the slum. Once juror #10 laid eyes on the boy, he sees no reason to waste time on debating the defendant's fate. His prejudice comes from the fact he used to come from the slums and considered those people trash. The third juror reveals himself to be emotional and has his opinion of the trial. Juror #3 prejudice comes from the his own experience. At age eight, his son ran away and later hit him in his face; causing him to believe all kids are rotten.
The theme of prejudice greatly depicts society today, as we stereotype races. In the world today, we as a society cannot get past our judgemental opinions, as the truth is left hanging. Prejudice has led fear, and hate. As a nation we have applied this theme to after 9/11 to people of the Middle East. In this case, the …show more content…

The play revolves around time and effort to analyze the issue. Juror #8 applies this theme in the jury room, depicting the facts and the truth. It is evident juror #8 endeavors his goal of having the verdict be not guilty. Juror #8 was the only juror, to fully understand the case; as the other jurors focused on only one aspect. Though, his effort is shown, as he points out his arguments to the members of the jury one by one, able to show reasonable doubt. Along with his determination to rise above with the truth, when jurors argue their thoughts. The effort of juror #8 impacts every person in the room; as the issue takes lots of time to

Show More
Related
97 Words | 1 Pages

1. The character that best exemplifies the theme of ‘prejudice’ without a doubt would have to be the 10th Juror. He bases his initial verdict on the suspect, upon the fact that he was already given a fair trial and considering that the vote was 11 to 1 in favor of guilty initially, there was no point in discussing the boy’s guiltlessness and ‘wasting his time’. Not only that, but the 10th Juror also bases his opinion on the fact that he apparently “lived among ‘em all my life” with ‘em’ referring to those types of kids.

Read More
648 Words | 3 Pages

You know that " (19).From that statement alone it shows us that he is indeed a racist and should not being sitting on a jury, in a case where a man’s life is in the hands of these 12 men, and if he is going to judge based off of race makes it impossible to have a fair trial. Finally, as the play goes on more and more jurors are changing to a not guilty vote because of the facts being provided and realizing this boy could very much be innocent but juror number 10 stands where he has been the whole play claiming the boy is guilty. He is one of the last men to change his vote. In act three he makes a very long speech which doesn’t make a majority of the jurors very happy. Juror 10 says “don’t understand you people.

Read More
502 Words | 3 Pages

Juror Eight was the only man from the beginning of the play who stuck by his belief that the kid was innocent. He stood alone in front of the other jurors and defended himself from the other jurors, such as Juror Three and Juror Ten. Jurors Three and Ten were adamant that the kid was guilty and refused to listen to Juror Eight’s “nonsense”. Juror Eight’s evidence and speeches persuaded all the other jurors to change their vote from not guilty, except for Juror Three. The only reason Juror Three had it out for the kid was because he himself had some issues with kids respecting their parents, and specifically their fathers.

Read More
1964 Words | 8 Pages

"Don 't judge a book by its cover" is a famous saying that some of us heard it before and some of us experienced it. 12 jurors were experiencing this quote when they gathered to decide whether a young boy is guilty by killing his father or not. Juror 2 stated, "Well, anyway, I think he was guilty" (6). Juror 2 represent most of us, as sometimes we judge from what we hear and not from what we see. The 12 jurors are from various backgrounds and each one has a distinctive personality.

Read More
1247 Words | 5 Pages

While all of the other men have changed their vote to a not guilty verdict, the third jurors remains with his original belief. Even in the very end of the play, he acts hostile against the others trying to change his mind, in saying “Do you think I’m an idiot or something?” (Rose 72). One juror that seems almost impervious to argumentative fallacies and peer pressure is Juror 8. Juror almost displays the ideal juror, and the rest tend to mimic the flaws of the system.

Read More
842 Words | 4 Pages

Throughout the film Twelve Angry Men, we see a situation where this connection is used by two jurors to help them understand the accused and decide this boy's fate. Juror #8 brought up multiple points about the accused

Read More
560 Words | 3 Pages

Juror number 3 is a very angry man who wants for the boy in question to be guilty. He wants nothing more than for him to go to jail. Juror number 3 doesn't stick to the facts he made the case more personal then it should have been. He stuck to one piece of evidence and then went on that piece until everyone agreed with him. He brought up a few times how his childhood was bad and brought a picture to show everyone and guilt trip them.

Read More
749 Words | 3 Pages

This technique dehumanises them so the only way to characterise them is by their personalities and reactions to the evidence of the murder case. Only after the first vote for guilty or not guilty with a tally of 11 for guilty and 1 for not guilty is the personalities of the jurors shown. The only person to vote not guilty is the 8th juror. He is immediately criticised by his fellow jurors, but he holds his ground as he thought there were too many holes in the evidence. "

Read More
569 Words | 3 Pages

In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, we can see that prejudice gets in the way of truth. Many of the jurors that participated have let prejudice get in their way to see the truth and look at the real situation and facts, for example, Juror Three, who “is a very strong, very forceful, extremely opinionated man within whom can be detected a streak of sadism… is intolerant of opinions other than his own, and accustomed to forcing his wishes upon others.” He has a son that he identifies as a “tough guy”, which is one of the descriptions of the 19-year-old accused, Juror Three let the image of his own son be reflected on the boy and made him think unfairly. Getting to the bottom of a complex issue takes time and effort. At the beginning of the play, most jury members wanted to get over the case and go home as early as they could, but one of the jury members, Juror Eight, who was sure the boy was not guilty, took many hours to question the evidence and the case and murder itself, but he was not the only one as other jury members also spoke about what they thought in the past options, fairly quick, it was almost six in the evening and Juror Six wanted to leave to go to his family, it may have been more of an excuse to leave, but the jurors did not let him leave because they had gone far enough to decide where the trial was going

Read More
1186 Words | 5 Pages

Twelve Angry Men is in many ways a love letter to the American legal justice system. We find here eleven men, swayed to conclusions by prejudices, past experience, and short-sightedness, challenged by one man who holds himself and his peers to a higher standard of justice, demanding that this marginalized member of society be given his due process. We see the jurors struggle between the two, seemingly conflicting, purposes of a jury, to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. It proves, however, that the logic of the American trial-by-jury system does work.

Read More
803 Words | 4 Pages

This process continues throughout the course of the movie, and each juror’s biases is slowly revealed. Earlier through the movie, it is already justifiable to label juror 10 as a bigoted racist as he reveals strong racist tendencies against the defendant, stating his only reason for voting guilty is the boy’s ethnicity and background. . Another interesting aspect of this 1957 film is the “reverse prejudice” portrayed by juror

Read More
492 Words | 2 Pages

The play states, “No. 8 remains standing, holding the scrap of paper. He looks at it closely now and seems to be interested in it.” We can see that number eight was trying his best to find clues and arguments to prove to the rest of the jury that he has a reason to believe the boy is innocent. He stays and investigates well the evidence against him and finds all these scenarios that don’t add up to what has said happened. Until slowly everyone comes to their senses and changes their vote guilty, to not guilty.

Read More
814 Words | 4 Pages

‘Twelve Angry Men’ written by Reginald Rose, is based on the story of a jury who have to come together to determine the fate of a young boy accused to have murdered his own father. Initially, eleven of the jurors vote not guilty with one of the juror being uncertain of the evidence put before them. As the men argue over the different pieces of evidence, the insanity begins to make sense and the decision becomes clearer as they vote several other times. Rose creates drama and tension in the jury room, clearly exploring through the many issues of prejudice, integrity and compassion, in gaining true justice towards the accused victim. These aspects have been revealed through three character who are Juror 10, Juror 8 and Juror 3.

Read More
513 Words | 3 Pages

Juror eight is a highly intelligent and logical person. In the start of the play, Juror eight is the only Juror to vote “not guilty” towards to trial. With his caring attitude towards the young boy in trial, he states that “I’m not

Read More
1404 Words | 6 Pages

The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar

Read More

More about 12 Angry Men Prejudice Essay

Related Topics

Open Document