More handpicked essays just for you.
Personal prejudice in Twelve Angry Man
Theme of conflict in twelve angry men film
Personal prejudice in Twelve Angry Man
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Have you ever been in a situation where you want to fit into the crowd by disguising who you truly are? 12 Angry Men by Sidney Lumet shows the crime and drama going on in a jury room. In this play there are twelve jurors that have to decide whether or not an 18 year old kid is guilty or not. There is only one juror that believes that the kid is not guilty so he must single handedly try to convince the rest of the jurors to change their minds. The theme of this play is that you should stand for what you believe with courage even if people don’t agree with you.
“12 Angry Men,” by Reginald Rose, is a dramatic play. Twelve jurors were sent into a jury room to decide the destiny of a 19-year-old boy. Distressingly, he was convicted of murdering his father. At the beginning of the play, the jurors take a vote, and every juror votes guilty; except Juror 8. Throughout the play, they disprove different testimonies such as an old man's testimony and a stab wound.
Juror Five is a white man, also born in the slums, but no one assumes that he is a criminal because he is white. Through the statements of Juror Four, his partiality is shown towards people of lower socioeconomic status. His prejudice, based on the race and social status of the defendant, is something not taught, but intrinsic in his psyche. Through this characterization, Twelve Angry Men reveals the origins the
In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, we can see that prejudice gets in the way of truth. Many of the jurors that participated have let prejudice get in their way to see the truth and look at the real situation and facts, for example, Juror Three, who “is a very strong, very forceful, extremely opinionated man within whom can be detected a streak of sadism… is intolerant of opinions other than his own, and accustomed to forcing his wishes upon others.” He has a son that he identifies as a “tough guy”, which is one of the descriptions of the 19-year-old accused, Juror Three let the image of his own son be reflected on the boy and made him think unfairly. Getting to the bottom of a complex issue takes time and effort. At the beginning of the play, most jury members wanted to get over the case and go home as early as they could, but one of the jury members, Juror Eight, who was sure the boy was not guilty, took many hours to question the evidence and the case and murder itself, but he was not the only one as other jury members also spoke about what they thought in the past options, fairly quick, it was almost six in the evening and Juror Six wanted to leave to go to his family, it may have been more of an excuse to leave, but the jurors did not let him leave because they had gone far enough to decide where the trial was going
Reginald Rose’s play, Twelve Angry Men provides many instances of different forms of prejudice throughout the play. Prejudice would cause many of the jurors to make biased or unfair decisions on the court case without taking time to think about the evidence. Prejudice came in several different forms such as Juror Four’s bias through classism, Juror Ten’s blatant and obstructive racism, and Juror Nine’s demonstration of ageism. Slums come up several times in the play and Juror Four shows the most negative opinion of them. Juror Four states that slums are, “breeding grounds for criminals”.
Twelve Angry Men is in many ways a love letter to the American legal justice system. We find here eleven men, swayed to conclusions by prejudices, past experience, and short-sightedness, challenged by one man who holds himself and his peers to a higher standard of justice, demanding that this marginalized member of society be given his due process. We see the jurors struggle between the two, seemingly conflicting, purposes of a jury, to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. It proves, however, that the logic of the American trial-by-jury system does work.
The play 12 Angry Men is about a jury of twelve men that are given the task of deciding the fate, guilty or not guilty, of a young boy accused of murdering his father. The theme of standing up against the majority is very prevalent in this story because of the decisions some of the jurors make throughout the play. Juror 8 makes the decision to vote not guilty, he is the one and only juror in this play that decides to vote not guilty for the boy in the beginning. The other eleven jurors decide to vote guilty because of the evidence that they have been presented with. The act of Juror 8 standing against the majority of the other jurors about the case, voting not guilty, allows the jurors to thoroughly dissect the case, understanding it fully and thoughtfully before making their decision of guilty or not guilty.
(Rose, 59). This quote clearly exposes juror 10’s bias against the race of the defendant, notice the use of the word “they”. While this may show that bias is a problem, bias is far from the only problem. Another problem is suggestibility.
This process continues throughout the course of the movie, and each juror’s biases is slowly revealed. Earlier through the movie, it is already justifiable to label juror 10 as a bigoted racist as he reveals strong racist tendencies against the defendant, stating his only reason for voting guilty is the boy’s ethnicity and background. . Another interesting aspect of this 1957 film is the “reverse prejudice” portrayed by juror
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
In the modern-day judicial system, prejudiced jurors are one of the leading concerns; this is outlined in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird. In this novel, Lee reveals the racial injustices vividly happening in trials. By revealing the prejudiced jury system, the court cannot be trusted as it is now corrupt. Bias in jury
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.
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.
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.
