ipl-logo

Stereotypes In Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose

902 Words4 Pages

In 1954, the enthralling, stirring drama Twelve Angry Men was written by Reginald Rose. This drama is used to show the depth of bias and flaws in the United States jury system; furthermore, how much juries stereotype defendants mainly based on features. Additionally, women and people of color weren’t allowed on juries; the jury consisted of only white men. A stereotype is the generalization about a certain category of people/things; furthermore, it often is an unfair/untrue belief that people associate a specific group of people with based on their characteristics. (Britannica). Stereotypes have become an asset many have come to use even when unintentional; therefore, this then encompasses microaggressions from the people doing the stereotyping. (Is Unconscious Bias). For example, in a study done it was found that the physical appearance of the defendant …show more content…

During the drama the jurors are talking about the motive for the defendant killing his father. This then led to the jurors talking about if any of them had kids; furthermore, Juror Three spoke up saying he had a kid who he’d gotten into a fight with when “He hit me in the face. He’s big y’know. I haven’t seen him in two years.” (Rose, pg 18). Deeper into the play Juror Three is enraged because the defendant killed his dad and he personally related. Deep down Juror Three wanted the defendant to be convicted as guilty due to how Juror Three felt about the falling out with his son; he wanted his son to pay for leaving. Juror Three held this grudge until the end of the drama where Juror Eight states, “It’s not your boy. He’s somebody else.” (Rose, pg 74). This is when Juror Three realizes he has been holding a personal grudge and has put all of his frustration about the situation onto the case and even the other jurors. Finally, Juror Three votes not

Show More
Related
451 Words | 2 Pages

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.

Read More
186 Words | 1 Pages

As the play went on, Juror Eight started proving how the boy was innocent. In the end Juror Eight changed all the other juror’s minds, except for Juror Three’s. Juror Three ended up changing his vote, not because they changed his mind but because he gave into peer pressure. He still had his prejudice influenced decision, he only gave in because he didn't want it to be a hung jury. Another example, from the same play, is Juror Eight.

Read More
502 Words | 3 Pages

Juror Eight was the only man from the beginning of the play who stuck by his belief that the kid was innocent. He stood alone in front of the other jurors and defended himself from the other jurors, such as Juror Three and Juror Ten. Jurors Three and Ten were adamant that the kid was guilty and refused to listen to Juror Eight’s “nonsense”. Juror Eight’s evidence and speeches persuaded all the other jurors to change their vote from not guilty, except for Juror Three. The only reason Juror Three had it out for the kid was because he himself had some issues with kids respecting their parents, and specifically their fathers.

Read More
747 Words | 3 Pages

Based on the evidence gathered from the case everyone agrees the boy is innocent except one man, juror three. He eventually breaks down and consequently tells the truth. The viewers can tell that this movie/play is full of emotions. Each of these emotions can be described as something more than what comes to the eye.

Read More
1247 Words | 5 Pages

While all of the other men have changed their vote to a not guilty verdict, the third jurors remains with his original belief. Even in the very end of the play, he acts hostile against the others trying to change his mind, in saying “Do you think I’m an idiot or something?” (Rose 72). One juror that seems almost impervious to argumentative fallacies and peer pressure is Juror 8. Juror almost displays the ideal juror, and the rest tend to mimic the flaws of the system.

Read More
755 Words | 4 Pages

Though juror 3 has been adamant on the guilt of the young boy it is safe to say that this case meant more to him because the relationship with his son is similar to the relationship between the boy and the father. Since his personal vendetta causes him to forcefully accuse the boy of murder it leaves the jury 11-1 in favor of not guilty. Since carefully reviewing the movie it becomes very prevalent that there has not been enough substantial evidence to convict the boy of murder. Furthermore, with the usage of group think all of the men, accept juror 3 are able to put their pride aside and vote what they truly believe the verdict should be, which is not guilty. Though, one of the more pragmatic points in the film happens after juror 3 becomes infuriated after realizing that all of the men are voting not guilty.

Read More
362 Words | 2 Pages

because the defendant reminds him of his son (Rose 21). In the courtroom, Juror 3’s resentment towards his son and their troublesome relationship is put on full display. Because of Juror 3’s projection of his negative stereotypes of teenagers, he stubbornly pushes the others to vote the defendant guilty. Through Juror 3, Rose attempts to show how negative past

Read More
192 Words | 1 Pages

I hate tough kids”(Rose 21). Juror 3 is showing unfair bias because he is trying to compare the kid on trial and his son saying they are all the same. He does not even know the boy that much and is already showing an unfair bias towards him because of his relationship with his own son and how much he reminds him of him. Juror 3’s bias stops him from seeing the boy as someone he has never met before into

Read More
621 Words | 3 Pages

The majority of the jurors have evident prejudice against the boy - pertaining to race. They collectively and almost instinctively decide to dismiss the case, wanting to avoid the truth, and acting on their personal judgments instead of gaining a realistic impression from the case. This is displayed when juror 8 tries to question the case and the other jurors respond with impatient and neglectful attitudes, stating that a sports game is on that night which they favour greater than the life of a teen boy.

Read More
757 Words | 4 Pages

This prejudice of his relationship with his son directly affects how he, juror three, views the case. Juror three’s emotion piles on as the other jurors discuss the case repeatedly, leading to his breakdown where he rips the picture of his son, then claims that the defendant is not

Read More
824 Words | 4 Pages

The jury is then dismissed to a room in which all but one juror votes guilty in favor of the death sentence. Henry Fonda, the sole juror voting not guilty, uses a mixture of persuasive appeals to slowly convince the other jurors, yet none more effectively than logos. The shift in momentum towards a not guilty verdict occurs when Fonda begins to discredit the old man’s testimony. The logical approach that Fonda takes, mapping out the old man’s room, counting the seconds, and reenacting the scene, not only begins to convince the other jurors but also the viewers of the film, which is equally, if not more important. The fact that the director choses not to show what really happened with the boys father, means that the audience also had to be convinced of the boys innocence, if not convinced, may not have seen this level of success.

Read More
814 Words | 4 Pages

Juror Ten announces his intentions very early in the play. He speaks loudly and forcefully from the beginning, clearly showing his racism and prejudice towards the boy. Juror 10 quickly votes guilty and asserts that the defendant cannot be believed because “they’re born liars”. Additionally, he claims that the “kids who crawl outa those places are real trash.”

Read More
851 Words | 4 Pages

This play sets up a murder mystery that keeps the audience on their feet and looking for answers. The jury consisted of twelve stubborn men. Eleven men found the boy guilt, while juror eight was the only man that wanted to review the case over again to make sure the jury was making the correct decision. All eleven jurymen were set on the boy being guilty and were trying to convince juror eight that he was guilty.

Read More
915 Words | 4 Pages

Throughout the whole play, Juror Ten remains stubborn in his decision that the defendant is guilty. Yet, at the end the finally sees that there is reasonable doubt (62). Interestingly enough, on the previous page Juror Ten is called out by Juror Four (60). The foreman also has some prejudice at the beginning of the case. He brings up another case that is similar to the one they are doing.

Read More
1404 Words | 6 Pages

The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar

Read More

More about Stereotypes In Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose

Related Topics

Open Document