Prejudice In Twelve Angry Men

Set on the hottest day of the year in 1957, Reginald Roses’ play Twelve angry men, illustrates the overall American civilisation and its varied viewpoints through the means of a judicial system. Rose explores prejudice as a barrier that jurors must overcome in order to obtain justice. Initially the jurors are preoccupied by certainty, however as deliberations unfold, the jurors recognise that certainty is unattainable. Hence, rose utilities are in reasonable doubt in the absence of certainty.

Prejudice plays a significant role in limiting the jury's ability to objectively examine the evidence. Each juror brings their own biases and preconceptions, which ‘are coloured’ by who presents them. Juror 10, has a strong judgement towards the defendant for being part of ‘those people’ who are ‘living in

Rather than uncovering certainty, their deliberations uncover doubt, enough doubt that they do not feel that the evidence is enough to convict the defendant “beyond a reasonable doubt.’ The jurors come to realise the weight of their responsibility and the irreversible consequences of their decision. Although the boy was accused of stabbing his father with a knife, it was later discovered by Juror 8 that there were ‘too many gaps’ in the evidence to prove that the boy was guilty. Rose utilities Juror 8 as the mouthpiece to persuade the other jurors that, doubts are cast upon the reliability of the evidence and the credibility of key witnesses. Doubts forced them to reconsider their stances, admitting that their initial perceptions may have been mistaken for more than just the case. Juror 8, with persistent confidence, persuades Juror 3, the final holdout, by calmly stating, "It's not your boy. He's somebody else.” As jurors become more comfortable admitting doubt, they stop treating others as categories or types and instead treat them as individual