Prejudice In Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men

425 Words2 Pages

In Reginald Rose's book "12 Angry Men," the author highlights how prejudice can lead to unfair trials. Rose's play revolves around a murder case in which twelve jurors must decide whether or not the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Throughout the play, Rose presents various arguments and evidence to support his claim that prejudice influences the decision-making process in trials, leading to unfair outcomes. In this essay, I will provide three pieces of evidence from the play to support this claim.

Firstly, Rose praises those who demonstrate fairness in their deliberations. Juror 8, the protagonist of the play, is the only member of the jury who initially votes "not guilty." He demonstrates a willingness to examine the evidence presented in the trial and to consider alternative explanations for what happened on the night of the murder. Juror 8's approach is in stark contrast to many of the other jurors, who are quick to dismiss evidence or to rely on their prejudices to make judgments. Rose uses Juror 8's character to show that fairness and impartiality are necessary for a just trial. …show more content…

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