Prejudice And Stereotyping In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

Twelve Angry Men, a play written for a televised audience focusing on the jury deliberation on a trail of a nineteen-year-old boy who is accused of murdering his father. As the jury deliberation occurs they find that the evidence presented is incomplete and faulty in reasoning

He is shown to be incredibly stubborn and particularly spiteful towards the defendant, who belongs to a family of a low social status. "You can't believe a word they say. I mean, they're born liars". This quote shows how the 10th Juror's reliance on common stereotypes can easily cloud his judgement, fully believing that he is a much more superior human. He also detests those who do not share a similar point of view or understanding with him, particularly towards the 8th Juror, which highlights his stubbornness and his close-minded attitude towards different ideas and viewpoints.

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.

Throughout the play, some jurors make comments that betray their biases. For example, one juror expresses disgust at the accused's background, suggesting that he is guilty simply because of his social class. Rose uses these moments to highlight how prejudice can cloud people's judgment and lead them to make unfair decisions. By shaming those who hold prejudiced opinions, Rose underscores the importance of objectivity and impartiality in the

Juror #3’s son affected how he saw the facts of the case due to their relationship. Juror #’s son left his father and he sees it as his son's fault. “... When he was fifteen he hit me in the face. … I haven't seen in three years.

Reginald Rose's play, "Twelve Angry Men," is a timeless classic that examines how prejudice can obstruct justice. The story centers around a jury of twelve men who must deliberate on the fate of a young man accused of murdering his father. As they discuss the case, it becomes apparent that many of the jurors hold preconceived notions that cloud their judgment, making it difficult for them to see the truth. In this essay, we will explore how prejudice can obscure the truth by examining three different examples from the play.

For example, Juror 3 is convinced that the boy is guilty because he has a strained relationship with his own son. He projects his own feelings of anger and resentment onto the boy, and argues that he must be guilty based on his own experiences. Juror 10 is

You know that.” (Sergel 17). In the same way, this juror heavily believes his interpretation of what the kid is like, a criminal, he stereotypes the boy due to his own experiences. As a juror, people are allowed to point out what you may believe are some factors that need to be considered, which is why this can be a reason to consider jury

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.

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.

With selfish attitudes like this, it was unlikely that Juror 10 would be interested in the truth behind the evidence and the case itself. Hence, his racial prejudice was important in determining his vote. He believes the boy is guilty, not because the facts point to it, but because of the boy’s ethnicity. It is clear that Rose has constructed Juror 10 as a means of identifying that prejudice,

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 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.

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.