Prejudice is an opinion you have before you even have evidence that isn’t based on experience or reason(Judgment). Prejudice was a very large thing in Twelve Angry Men because many of the jurors judge the defendant before they received any of the evidence that he was guilty. “Two: I thought it was obvious.(Page 17)” “Two: I mean that nobody proved otherwise.(Page 18)” Two, a prejudice, didn’t care or use any evidence to make his opinion that the defendant was guilty.
Prejudice was revealed in Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, because it is twelve angry men who have to prove whether this boy is guilty or not guilty of murder to his father. Yes, there was a lot of prejudice but the main was Ageism, upbringing along with classism. Ageism would bring how one of the jurors has a past with his son, jurors judged the kid with his past consequences, along with the upbringing of classism that would follow how the jurors judged the kid on what he looked like, where he lived and how he presented himself. Ageism displayed in this play by juror three with how he treats his own son “ he hit me in the face.
The Power of Three Perspectives One can be easily mislead or persuade in a direction they do not agree with. However this is not the case with Juror 8 (Mr. Davis) in the film 12 Angry Men. In this film, twelve jurors try to identify whether or not the convicted eighteen year-old boy is guilty of murdering his father with a switchblade knife. If the puerto-rican boy is found guilty, he will be sent to the electric chair and sentenced to death.
People act upon what they think. Within “12 Angry Men”, all of the jurors have an opinion but some voice their more than others. One juror in particular, Juror Ten, voices his opinion about the boy in question. Repeatedly throughout the play, Juror Ten makes many thoughtless and hurtful comments about a certain kind of people. It is clear that Juror Ten’s uncompromising belief that the accused is guilty is because of his dislike for the boy’s race.
Noah Aguiling Mrs. Cattolico LA II Honors 10 March 2023 Juror 3’s Revenge In Reginald Rose’s play, Twelve Angry Men, Juror 3’s prejudice throughout the play represents how past experiences and stereotypes may create negative feelings and unfair judgment towards a certain group of people. For example, when Juror 3 argues that the defendant is guilty, he exclaims, “I hate tough kids!”
Prejudice was revealed in Twelve Angry Men by the author Reginald Rose,this play is about how jurors who are unhappy have to come together to determine whether a young boy who is accused of the murder of his father. In saying that prejudice was used in ways like Ageism with one of the jurors who holds a grudge towards his own son. The jurors using the boy's past against him which would be upbringing of the child's life. Then there's the classism, jurors used this towards each other about the boy with how he dressed himself, and where he lived. Ageism is displayed by Juror three in this play, with the guilt he had from his son since they didn’t get along he held a grudge towards all kids “ he hit me in the face.
The first example of unfair bias seen in 12 Angry Men is that, Juror 3 let his relationship with his son get in the way of having an unbiased opinion on the justice of the boy on trial. Juror 3 explains to the rest of the jury that “When he was fifteen he hit me in the face. He’s big, you know? I haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid!
Twelve Angry Men, written by the American playwright Reginald Rose, is a play depicting the workings of the American judicial system in 1957 that aid in forming the speculations of the murder case. In addition, it exemplifies the communal values in the society, the different etiquettes and affairs in America during the 1950’s. In the play, Rose displays a biased jury consisting of twelve men from distinct backgrounds that have contrasting views, opinions and reasons are entrusted with announcing a boy’s innocence or guilt over a patricide. Twelve Angry Men, is a celebration of justice and likewise a warning about the fragility of justice and the strengths of complacency, prejudice, and absence of civic responsibility that would undermine it. Several members of the jury demonstrate that they are practically unequipped for considering the murder case reasonably and
Mobashshir Arshad Ansari DM 16230 The movie “12 Angry Men” is a court drama based movie. The entire film takes place within a small New York City jury room, on "the hottest day of the year," as 12 men debate the fate of a young defendant charged with murdering his father. Most courtroom movies feel it necessary to end with a clear-cut verdict. But "12 Angry Men" never states whether the defendant is innocent or guilty if innocent then who is guilty.
In 12 Angry Men, the movie begins in a courtroom where the case is being discussed by the judge, who seems fairly uninterested. The jurors are then instructed to enter the jury room to begin their deliberations. They take a vote and all but juror 8 vote guilty. The jurors react violently to the dissenting vote but ultimately decide to go around the table in hope of convincing the 8th juror.
Many people now a day’s get offended really easily like if a women or african American were to watch or read 12 Angry Men they would probably get upset, but the truth to the matter is you shouldn't be because every single person is different even if they do look alike. An example would be jurors eight and three they think and act very different many times throughout the story like in this quote “(shouting) ‘Shut up! (Lunges at eight, but is caught by two of the jurors and is held. He struggles has eight watches him calmly. Then screams) Let me go!
The justice system that relies on twelve individuals reaching a life-or-death decision has many complications and dangers. The play Twelve Angry Men, by Reiginald Rose, illustrates the dangers of a justice system that relies on twelve people reaching a life-or-death decision because people are biased, they think of a jury system as an inconvenience, and many people aren’t as intelligent as others. The first reason why Reiginald illustrates dangers is because people can be biased or they can stereotype the defendant. The Jurors in Twelve Angry Men relate to this because a few of them were biased and several of them stereotyped the defendant for being from the slums. The defendant in this play was a 19 year old kid from the slums.
‘Twelve Angry Men’ written by Reginald Rose, is based on the story of a jury who have to come together to determine the fate of a young boy accused to have murdered his own father. Initially, eleven of the jurors vote not guilty with one of the juror being uncertain of the evidence put before them. As the men argue over the different pieces of evidence, the insanity begins to make sense and the decision becomes clearer as they vote several other times. Rose creates drama and tension in the jury room, clearly exploring through the many issues of prejudice, integrity and compassion, in gaining true justice towards the accused victim. These aspects have been revealed through three character who are Juror 10, Juror 8 and Juror 3.
Drama, often defined as the visual form of literature, can be seen as a mix of both realistic and unrealistic elements. Through drama, playwrights can develop plays that reflect our society and societal issues, consolidating different aspects of the real world to indirectly communicate with the audience. Reginald Rose's 1954 play, the 'Twelve Angry Men' is an excellent example of this, with recurring themes of racial bias, discrimination and social inequality woven deep into the plot, allowing him to convey his messages accurately and indirectly to the reader. The 12 conflicting titular characters each represent different ideologies and perspectives, which can greatly reflect how they react towards the situation faced.
The movie “Twelve Angry Men” illustrates lots of social psychology theories. This stretched and attractive film, characterize a group of jurors who have to decide the innocence or guiltiness of an accused murder. They are simply deliberating the destiny of a Puerto Rican teenaged boy accused of murdering his father. Initially, as the film begins, except the juror Davis (Henry Fonda), all other jurors vote guilty. Progressively, the jurors begin trying to compromise on a point that everybody agree because the decision of the jury has to be unanimous.
