Our life experiences make our present, our values, our way of behaving and thinking. Although no one is perfect, we are prone to develop prejudice against those who are totally different from us.
For most of the time, prejudice only affects us personally. But if an individual is given a power to be responsible for another person’s live or death, prejudice can turn into a deadly weapon.
In "twelve angry men," we can see how prejudice has its own way with the cloak of justice. Personal prejudice is most strongly evident in the characters of Juror #3 and Juror #10.
At the beginning of story, Juror #3 immediately claimed that the case was simple and the defendant’s guilt was obvious. Although he was not a new juror and ought to be experienced
…show more content…
He found faults in mostly all those around him, especially those of a different race or financial class. Throughout the play, he kept throwing his prejudice around the Juror room so the others could vote guilty. The more we hear from Juror #10, the more we realize how ignorant he was. Eventually, he launched into one final rant, a hateful discrimination speech, "Well, don 't you know about them? There 's a... There 's a danger here. These people are dangerous. They 're... wild. Listen to me. Listen to me."
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. No human being is truly capable of putting their preconceptions aside to judge a situation without bias. Justice will never be just if it can be influenced by prejudice. When making judgments, we should be objective and not let prejudice blind our hearts. Only in this way can we be responsible for ourselves and