Twelve Angry Men Character Analysis Paragraph In Reginald Rose's 1950s play Twelve Angry Men, Juror 10's discriminatory remarks about people who grew up in slums represent prejudice in America and its negative impact on the justice system. The audience is first clued in on Juror 10's prejudice when he's discussing the murder and he says, "Well it's the element. They let the kids run wild. Maybe it serves em' right" (Rose 13). At first, the audience isn't fully sure what Ten is referring to when he says "the element". It is most likely he's talking about a group of people as Juror 4 responds to him, saying that Juror 10 should use actual evidence that isn't "some emotion you may have - perhaps a dislike for some group" (Rose 13). The story has just barely begun and it's already showing the audience how Juror 10 doesn't …show more content…
This is important because his emotions could cloud his judgment on this case and cause him to possibly send an innocent man to death. Similar to prejudiced people in real life, Juror 10 didn't immediately state his beliefs outright, but instead, did so in a small subtle comment that could be easily missed by others. Near the end of the story, Juror 10 drops all pretenses of hiding his prejudices when he goes on a tirade about people from the slum, saying that they "don't know what the truth is", that "human don't mean as much to them as it does to us", and that "There's not a one of 'em who's any good" (Rose 59). This shows just how deep Juror 10's distrust of this group of people goes. He is unable to even fathom that a single person who