Prejudice In Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men

In Reginald Rose’s play Twelve Angry Men, the story dives into a jury in a conflict of choosing the verdict of a murder trial. The jury is in a hot room fueled by heated arguments and discussions on whether the young man is guilty or innocent. At the beginning of the decision process, the majority had decided that the boy was guilty of murder, but Juror #8 contested otherwise. Throughout the play, Juror #8 maintains his conformist views that altered the outcome of the court case. Furthermore, the argument set by how jurors decided the final verdict is shown in Twelve Angry Men by how they are challenged through the idea of conformity and nonconformity.

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

The U.S. justice system is a concept that has come under scrutiny many times over the 200-plus years of its existence, but which still exists in much the same form today as when it was first devised. “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a theatrical drama that portrays many of the merits and faults of the jury-based judicial system. Some of the pros that are shown include how the input of many different people and backgrounds can result in a greater truth being uncovered, and how the voice of even a single man can be heard and considered by all jury members. Some cons that the play illustrates include how there can instances in which jury members merely go with the immediate popular opinion on the verdict, whether because they are susceptible to peer pressure or merely because they’d rather the case be over with as quickly as possible. Rose himself seems to be generally in favor of the current U.S. justice system, as the characters who represent the negative aspects of the system are shown to be hateful and irrational men, while the opposite is true for the people who represent the system’s more positive qualities.

The play shows us how prejudice can affect our judgment and decision-making, and how important it is to be aware of our own biases. It highlights the importance of being open-minded and willing to consider all the evidence presented to us. In conclusion, "Twelve Angry Men" is a powerful reminder of the dangers of prejudice and the importance of fairness and impartiality in our justice system. In one hand some jurors believe that the boy is guilty based on their own prejudices and biases.

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

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.

This highlights the importance of being aware of one's biases and striving to be impartial when making decisions, especially in a court of law where the consequences of a wrong verdict can be severe. It's also important to note that the prejudices in the play are not limited to the jurors. The defendant in the play, who is on trial for murder, is a victim of prejudice from the larger society. He is from a different race and background from the jurors, and this difference contributes to their biases and mistrust towards him. The play suggests that these prejudices and biases are so deeply ingrained in society that even a courtroom, where justice is supposed to be served objectively, is not immune from

In Reginald Rose’s play, Twelve Angry Men, he depicts a story of 12 jurors quarreling to decide the fate of a 19-year-old boy who stands accused of murdering his father. Juror 3, a stubborn man characterized by his dogmatic and uncompromising personality, is one of those jurors. Rose uses Juror 3, along with his prejudices, past, and the clashing of opinions, to demonstrate the themes of personal accountability and diverse experiences. When debating if the boy should get a second chance because of his unfortunate past, Juror 3 mentions his son “When he was fifteen he hit me in the face” (Rose 20). Juror 3’s past illuminates how his personal biases affect his judgment toward the boy.

Anyone from any socioeconomic class can commit a crime, but Juror 4 believes the defendant is more likely to do so given his socioeconomic status. Throughout the play, prejudice is demonstrated; juror number three states, "That man is a dangerous killer.  You could see it. " The defendant is a person of colour, yet the jury consists entirely of white men.

In the play Twelve Angry Men, author Reginald Rose makes a comment on how a person’s prejudices dictate how they make decisions. In the play, twelve unnamed jurors, who only refer to each other as their numbers, are assigned to set an unseen defendants verdict in a murder trial. The only description of the accused given is stated by the jurors as they discuss the case and voice their opinions. The jurors’ own prejudices against “those/them” people, people from slums, and personal experience, influenced their decisions as they dictated a verdict.

8th juror appeals to their sense of pathos and pity by saying “this boy’s been kicked around all his life… He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.” While this has nothing to do with the case, he hopes to appeal to their humanity in order to get them to give him a chance in these deliberations.

Nothing is fair in life. The boy did not have a fair jury for several reasons. In the play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose a nineteen year old boy is accused of premeditated homicide for his father. Twelve jurors must make the groundbreaking decision that decides whether or not the boy goes off to execution. In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose the accused did not have a fair jury because the jurors messed up the voting, knew the boy’s criminal background, and had personal connections to the case.

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 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.