Examples Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men

When indisputable evidence is presented, would time be spent to double check this evidence? Especially when the fate of another’s life is in your hands? During that choice would stereotypes and prejudices be placed aside in order to choose that fate? The answer can be drawn from within Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose as it entertains while teaching lessons that one day could change the fate of a total stranger as the drama and the need for justice increases within the play.

The movie “Twelve Angry Men” portrayed the theme of prejudice though several of the jurors base their opinions of the case on racist feelings toward the 16 year old boy. This is shown by; “The 4th Juror coldly states that people from slums are more likely to be violent, which offends the 5th Juror, who grew up in a slum. The 10th Juror makes racist statements throughout, and as the deliberation goes on” (Sparknotes) This is relevant to the

In each vote the jury held, Juror #8, since the beginning, had a different view than everyone else because he was “not certain that the evidence was sufficiently clear” to make a final decision on the first vote (Cunningham 112). Even though everyone stood against him, he was “devoted to justice and act[ed] with integrity” no matter what the rest of the jury said to him (Aubrey). As Juror #8 continued making points and having the other jurors look deeper into the facts, the “wiser and more emotionally stable jurors” altered their verdict (Cunningham 112). For example, Jurors #4 and #11 changed their ruling when Juror #8 presented not-so-obvious facts, like the lady’s glasses markings. However, jurors with less empathy, like Jurors #7 and #10, never opened their minds to the possibility that the facts presented in court were false or altered.

Reginald Rose’s play Twelve Angry Men emphasizes the negative effects of prejudice and stereotyping through Juror 10’s generalising, compared to Juror 8’s impartiality. This overall proves that prejudice and stereotyping can lead to cloudy judgement, which results in injustice in society. Firstly, Juror 10 is a prejudiced individual who stereotypes

As a result of their different racial groups, the script makes it clear that the men, at times, struggle to relate to the defendant. At several points in the script, jurors hold the defendant to standards both higher and lower than they do for themselves. Juror #10 takes this to the most extreme degree possible; towards the end of the story, he goes on a hatred-fueled rant, spewing hateful rhetoric towards Puerto Ricans (Rose 100). His life up to this point, being part of such a privileged group in society, has allowed him to form and keep his bigoted opinions. He can’t, and quite possibly never will, truly understand the plight people like the defendant experience.

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.

The Twelve Man Jury The Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal but are are they treated equally as well. In the play “Twelve Angry Men” written by Reginald Rose the main characters are Juror #8 Juror #3 Juror #10 Juror #7 and the Forman. The play is about how twelve men debate the guilt or innocence of a 19 year old boy. People's different prejudices and biases can affect their decisions and judgment.

In today's criminal justice system, it is just as important to have jurors who are open-minded and willing to consider all the evidence presented to them. Jurors who are influenced by their own prejudices can have a significant impact on the outcome of a trial, and can lead to wrongful convictions or acquittals. For example, if Juror 10, who is a bigot, were to serve on a jury in a modern case involving a person of color, his biases could lead him to make a hasty decision based on the defendant's race rather than on the evidence presented in the case. Similarly, if Juror 3, who has a strained relationship with his own son, were to serve on a jury in a case involving a juvenile defendant, his own experiences could cloud his judgment and lead him to make a decision based on his own personal biases rather than on the evidence presented in the case.

This is important because his emotions could cloud his judgment on this case and cause him to possibly send an innocent man to death. Similar to prejudiced people in real life, Juror 10 didn't immediately state his beliefs outright, but instead, did so in a small subtle comment that could be easily missed by others. Near the end of the story, Juror 10 drops all pretenses of hiding his prejudices when he goes on a tirade about people from the slum, saying that they "don't know what the truth is", that "human don't mean as much to them as it does to us", and that "There's not a one of 'em who's any good" (Rose 59). This shows just how deep Juror 10's distrust of this group of people goes. He is unable to even fathom that a single person who

His prejudice is clear when he says that “I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say” when speaking about the boy (16). Juror Ten’s prejudice causes him to disregard all of the facts that are presented to him by Juror Eight that can prove that the accused is not guilty. Juror 10 allows his prejudice to blind him of the truth. That is until he is called out by his fellow jurors.

The issue of prejudice is an important one in 12 Angry Men. The play focuses on the prejudices of the jurors and addresses how they could have overcome them. One instance of prejudice in Twelve Angry Men occurs when Juror 12 has animosity toward the environment in which the defendant was raised. He says, "Well, it's the element. They let the kids run wild.

This movie is the best example of minority influence where in the earlier stage only one juror no. 8 says defendant is not guilty but in the end of the movie we see that he is able to influence all the jurors in a very logical manner which I am going to point out later so that all the jurors lastly says the defendant is not guilty. Minority influence is more likely to occur if the point of view of the minority is consistent, flexible, and appealing to the majority. The juror no. 8 doesn’t know defendant is guilty or not guilty but he has only doubt in his mind which he trying to clear during the entire film and with which he also able to clear the views of other

Dr. Irving Janis’ symptoms of groupthink in the film such as “belief in the inherent morality of the group” which Janis states,” members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions” (Psysr.org, 2018). They believe what they are saying is right and don’t think about what comes along with the decision made. Closed-mindedness is another obvious symptom seen in the jury. Juror 10 uses the phrase “one of them” and frequently divides society into the words “us” and “them” using the phrase to point out stereotypes. Individuals on the jury often justify their views to avoid challenges.

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

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.