12 Angry Men Prejudice Analysis

715 Words3 Pages
Prejudice in this book is present and as a jury in the trial, it can bad for the accused in many ways depending on what the crime was committed. A man was murdered and the son of that man is the only one known to be with him that night yet claims to have been elsewhere. The jurors are the only ones to determine this guy’s future to be proven innocent, or falsely accused guilty by the preconceived notion of the juries. Only one jury stood out only because he knew the right for a fair trial is to be upon this man and as for everyone, the only one who hasn’t judged the boy in any way. Juror number three thought he was a slum as if any other slum would be, a criminal living trashy and even think they’re stupid. The way a person judges can affect…show more content…
Juror number 3 went off knowing that they’ll spend some time in the room debating whether the boy was the murderer of his father, along with the other jurors. The way juror number three was displaying in a way was that he was judging the boy since he was in the courtroom and mentioned he looked as guilty as ever, but this preconceived notion goes more into depth with the same juror commenting about his background. When someone has the mind of bias thinking, that person is entitled to only see the flaws of others and not the positive qualities one possess, yet can’t see their own mistakes committed noticed. As this continues, juror eight viewed this case and led some other jurors to think and dramatize the evidence they were given by the testimonies from what they saw. Little by little, the jurors start to change their opinion about the case of the young man and have been supporting juror eight by the facts he has stated in the room, yet juror three still wouldn’t reason correctly and thought the guy should convicted of the

More about 12 Angry Men Prejudice Analysis

Open Document