Prejudice and preconceived notions in “Twelve Angry Men” impacted the votes of the jury. The jurors were very prejudice against the defendant who was accused of killing his father, because he was from the slums and because he was arrested a few times. Juror 3 was the most prejudice and requested that the boy should be put in jail before even hearing the story. Juror 3 thinks that the two witnesses are enough to prove that he’s guilty. The first witness, the old man downstairs, said he heard the boy yell “I’m gonna kill you” at 10 minutes after midnight and then heard a body hit the floor. The second witness, the old lady from the apartment building across the street says she saw the kid stick his father with a knife at 12:10. The story begins with the 12 jurors talking about the defendant, a 19 year old boy from the slums was accused of stabbing and killing his father. Most of the jurors automatically believed this because the boys had a bad reputation the others thought there wasn’t enough evidence to prove if he was guilty or not. At 15 the boy stole a car, he was arrested for mugging and for slashing another teenager with a knife and lastly, because he was from the slums and had an abusive father, which led the jurors to have their suspicions about him. …show more content…
Then, they realize that none of the witnesses stories could be true because the el train would be way too loud for the old man to hear the boy yell and the old lady couldn’t have seen through the el train crowded with people. They knew nothing about the kid, only that he was from the slums and did some bad stuff in his past so they jumped to conclusions instead of getting proof that he did kill his