ipl-logo

Examples Of Bias In 12 Angry Men

435 Words2 Pages

12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a primary example of how bias can affect one’s decision-making. As the trial progresses, it is clear to the reader just how much bias can be used as an obstacle to justice. Throughout the course of the play, Reginald Rose illustrates how the prejudice of juror number 10, and the past of juror number 3 prevent them from trying the case logically and unbiasedly. Juror number 10 displays a major bias toward the defendant, which ultimately leads to a preconceived notion. To begin this play, Juror number 10 expresses prejudice when he states, “You’re not going to tell us that we’re supposed to believe him, knowing what he is” (Rose 16). In the case of juror number 10, prejudice plays a huge role in his decision-making because his bias towards the defendant influences him to want to declare the defendant guilty before knowing all the facts. It is clear from his choice of words, "knowing what he is" (Rose 16) that he has already written off the defendant and is ready to declare him guilty. In conclusion, juror number 10’s perspective of this case is compromised and, as a result, he has a bigoted mindset towards it because of the group of people he associates with the defendant. …show more content…

Juror 3 explains to the other jurors, “I’ve got a kid… I haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids!” (Rose 21). In the mind of juror number 3, the defendant is like his own kid that left him. Due to the resemblance to his own child, this clouds his judgment, and nothing can sway his decision to assume that the defendant is guilty. Juror number 3’s perspective of the defendant and the case is influenced by the fact that he sees a resemblance with his own son who left him, so he is biased as to whether he views him as guilty or

Show More
Related
432 Words | 2 Pages

This juror believes the defendant's testimony is completely inaccurate because he is just a kid, and kids lie all the time. This is once again decided by prejudice and not regarding the actual testimony. Age does not prove whether a defendant is innocent or

Read More
434 Words | 2 Pages

He realizes this when he “contorts [his face] and he begins to pound on [the] table with his fist,” and “seems [to be] about to cry” (Rose 63). This is when Juror 3 realizes that his negative experience with his son has dictated his distaste toward the boy and that he had no real reason to oppose him as much as he did. Though being the most stubborn of the jurors, being able to re-examine the beliefs and opinions he is so fixated on empowers Juror 3 to be able to demonstrate personal accountability, showing how important personal accountability is to confronting one’s past and biases. Throughout the play, because of his loud and opinionated personality, Juror 3 assumes leadership of those voting guilty. This is in stark contrast to Juror 8, a thoughtful person who is willing to give the benefit of the doubt who is the first person to vote not guilty to give the boy a chance.

Read More
432 Words | 2 Pages

(page 13). Instead of going in depth into whether the defendant is guilty or not, juror 7 states his own opinion, not openly caring about others. While juror 7 is putting almost no effort into the case, many of the other jurors are biased against the

Read More
425 Words | 2 Pages

Throughout the play, some jurors make comments that betray their biases. For example, one juror expresses disgust at the accused's background, suggesting that he is guilty simply because of his social class. Rose uses these moments to highlight how prejudice can cloud people's judgment and lead them to make unfair decisions. By shaming those who hold prejudiced opinions, Rose underscores the importance of objectivity and impartiality in the

Read More
682 Words | 3 Pages

Since he is unable to look into the facts and is in denial when they are presented, he does not closely analyse the details because deep down, he wants the boy to die, guilty or not. Had Juror 8 voted guilty, the boy would have died, whether he committed the crime or not. If the accused was innocent, they would have sent an innocent man to die without even taking the time to dig deeper to uncover the truth, to which justice would not have been served. Additionally, prejudice and stereotyping creates a fear within those subjected to them. They start to think negatively and feel ashamed over something they have no control over.

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
1108 Words | 5 Pages

In a testament to both his own stubbornness and loyalty to the guilty cause, Juror #10 rebuffs every argument made by the not guilty party. Equally important, Juror #3 is willfully obtuse to the revelations made by the other jurors, marking him as the twelfth and final juror to vote not guilty. In the end, it takes the other men demanding his line of thinking for him to finally declare “not guilty” (Rose 115). Juror #3, being the main antagonist, is stuck in his pessimistic mindset and refuses to change his decision regarding the defendant’s fate. At times, it’s clear he is blowing off rationale for the sake of maintaining his guilty verdict.

Read More
1458 Words | 6 Pages

This movie is the best example of minority influence where in the earlier stage only one juror no. 8 says defendant is not guilty but in the end of the movie we see that he is able to influence all the jurors in a very logical manner which I am going to point out later so that all the jurors lastly says the defendant is not guilty. Minority influence is more likely to occur if the point of view of the minority is consistent, flexible, and appealing to the majority. The juror no. 8 doesn’t know defendant is guilty or not guilty but he has only doubt in his mind which he trying to clear during the entire film and with which he also able to clear the views of other

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
801 Words | 4 Pages

If it wasn 't for Juror #8, I don 't know what terrible consequences would have been. Owing to his insistence, the case was discussed and everyone began to pay attention to the details of the case, testimony, evidence, and witness actions. In the end, twelve people overcame prejudice, ceased the conflict, and made the right decision. The play tells us that justice can be affected by prejudice very easily.

Read More
591 Words | 3 Pages

The justice system that relies on twelve individuals reaching a life-or-death decision has many complications and dangers. The play Twelve Angry Men, by Reiginald Rose, illustrates the dangers of a justice system that relies on twelve people reaching a life-or-death decision because people are biased, they think of a jury system as an inconvenience, and many people aren’t as intelligent as others. The first reason why Reiginald illustrates dangers is because people can be biased or they can stereotype the defendant. The Jurors in Twelve Angry Men relate to this because a few of them were biased and several of them stereotyped the defendant for being from the slums. The defendant in this play was a 19 year old kid from the slums.

Read More
814 Words | 4 Pages

With selfish attitudes like this, it was unlikely that Juror 10 would be interested in the truth behind the evidence and the case itself. Hence, his racial prejudice was important in determining his vote. He believes the boy is guilty, not because the facts point to it, but because of the boy’s ethnicity. It is clear that Rose has constructed Juror 10 as a means of identifying that prejudice,

Read More
915 Words | 4 Pages

Throughout the whole play, Juror Ten remains stubborn in his decision that the defendant is guilty. Yet, at the end the finally sees that there is reasonable doubt (62). Interestingly enough, on the previous page Juror Ten is called out by Juror Four (60). The foreman also has some prejudice at the beginning of the case. He brings up another case that is similar to the one they are doing.

Read More
721 Words | 3 Pages

The movie “Twelve Angry Men” illustrates lots of social psychology theories. This stretched and attractive film, characterize a group of jurors who have to decide the innocence or guiltiness of an accused murder. They are simply deliberating the destiny of a Puerto Rican teenaged boy accused of murdering his father. Initially, as the film begins, except the juror Davis (Henry Fonda), all other jurors vote guilty. Progressively, the jurors begin trying to compromise on a point that everybody agree because the decision of the jury has to be unanimous.

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 Examples Of Bias In 12 Angry Men

Related Topics

Open Document