People have been dealing with prejudice for centuries, but now, in our modern society, prejudice is not acceptable and is something to be fought from within. In the drama, Twelve Angry Men, the jurors must decide the verdict of a young man from the slums who was said to have killed his father, but certain jurors use their own personal bias in their argument. Jurors Three, Seven, and Ten all show prejudice for their own reasons, but they end up changing their vote, showing the audience that prejudice won’t work anymore. Juror Three had a kid who was violent and tough just like the suspect for the murder. Throughout the book, he shows prejudice against kids and simply wants the kid to get incarcerated. Three told the rest of the jurors, “You’re right. It's the kids. The way they are—you know? They don't listen”(21). Juror 3’s son was similar to the defendant, so naturally, he shows prejudice against young kids who are tough. He used his own personal bias in his argument and tried as hard as he can to get the boy convicted. Later, his “argument” was not approved by the rest of the jurors including Jurors Four and Ten, who were with Juror Three until the end and he gave up trying to argue. …show more content…
When Juror Eleven said, “I beg your pardon, but maybe you don’t understand the term, ‘reasonable doubt.’” Juror Seven’s responded with statements like,”Who do you think you are to talk to me like that?” and “He comes over here running for his life, and before he can even take a big breath he’s telling us how to run the show”(53). Juror Seven’s words show prejudice against someone of another race and he claims that Juror Eleven shouldn’t be able to speak his mind. Eventually, he understood that his prejudice wasn’t needed and he