12 Angry Men Pride And Prejudice Analysis

499 Words2 Pages
In “Twelve Angry Men” juror 3’s strong mind and prejudice causes him to label the defendant and judge him before ever knowing the facts in the case. Because juror 3 has such strong opinions he isn’t afraid to say what he believes it causes problems. In the novel antagonist enlightens the other jurors on him and his son situation after his son punched him in the face, he makes the comment “I haven’t seen him in two years. Rotten kid.” By juror 3 making this comment he's letting people know that he thinks kids are rotten and have no respect for their parents that have does everything for them. This makes him hateful and hostile towards younger boys. In the beginning of act 1 juror 3 says he grew up calling his father sir, which was a sign of respect, then later in the text he brings up statement of what the man who lived below the boy and his father who heard his say he was going to kill his father; the father was known for putting his hands on the son, juror 3 says “the kid said he was going to kill him and he did kill him.” (37; act 1) with juror 3 thinking that young boys are trouble, and also knowing that the suspect and the victim had problems in their relationship people would say that this gave the boy a motive to kill his father, juror 3 has set in his mind that from knowing the young boys history and where he grew up that he could potentially kill someone.…show more content…
At the end of act two juror 8 want juror 3 to say his argument on why he thinks the kid is guilty, he restates the statement given by the two neighbors who testified. When he proceeded with his argument he kinda got emotional specifically when he brought up the son stabbing his own father “the phrase was “i’m gonna kill you.” That’s what he

More about 12 Angry Men Pride And Prejudice Analysis

Open Document