Discrimination In 12 Angry Men

People act upon what they think. Within “12 Angry Men”, all of the jurors have an opinion but some voice their more than others. One juror in particular, Juror Ten, voices his opinion about the boy in question. Repeatedly throughout the play, Juror Ten makes many thoughtless and hurtful comments about a certain kind of people. It is clear that Juror Ten’s uncompromising belief that the accused is guilty is because of his dislike for the boy’s race.

Why should the color of someone’s skin effect a crime that was committed? In the vignette of “Twelve Angry Men” the author, Reginald Rose addresses racism. According to act three on page 27 the Jurors are coming to a vote on whether or not the boy was guilty or not. The boy claimed that he wasn’t guilty of committing a premeditated murder but Juror number ten said otherwise. The evidence that is shown to prove this point is when all the jurors are all at the table and they all go to the window and turn their backs towards juror number ten, specifically juror numbers three and four.

‘Twelve Angry Men’ written by Reginald Rose, is based on the story of a jury who have to come together to determine the fate of a young boy accused to have murdered his own father. Initially, eleven of the jurors vote not guilty with one of the juror being uncertain of the evidence put before them. As the men argue over the different pieces of evidence, the insanity begins to make sense and the decision becomes clearer as they vote several other times. Rose creates drama and tension in the jury room, clearly exploring through the many issues of prejudice, integrity and compassion, in gaining true justice towards the accused victim. These aspects have been revealed through three character who are Juror 10, Juror 8 and Juror 3.

Cruel Times The cruelty in this book is seen through the situations of Tom Robinson, Boo Radley, and Maycomb's reaction to Atticus taking the Tom Robinson case It is very unsettling. Tom Robinson's case was a very unique in that he did absolutely nothing wrong and was still in court all because of his skin. "There's something in our world that makes men lose their heads they couldn't be fair if they tried. In our courts, when it's a white man's word against a black man's, the white man always wins. They're ugly, but those are the facts of life."

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

Every juror had his own set of prejudices which gave way to so many fallacies to come up. The fallacies here are listed juror wise, all the fallacious traits observed in one juror at a time. 1) Juror 1: i) The juror changes his opinion after listening to the explanations of how the knife was used to hit the man. This could be a fallacy of False Cause. This can be said because just by knowing the way murder was done, it could not be concluded that the kid was

And this is a great example of symbolism. Mr.Twain represents Mr. Sherburn and the mob is the rest of the audience who is hateful and bigoted and also that deny the African American people to receive equal rights. And through Symbolism we see that Mr.Sherburn is right about the mob and their lack of courage. He explains how all of them are pitiful and how they are all cowards. And this is true for them and the people in real life who hunt, mistreat, and even kill African American people they are all cowards, they don’t have honor.

The jurors react violently to the dissenting vote but ultimately decide to go around the table in hope of convincing the 8th juror. 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

Juror 3: He is an impulsive, humourless and extremely opinionated character whose own conflict with his own son caused him to take the case personally. Being a Controller (intuitor/judger temperament) with low emotional stability and high in competitiveness, he displayed his ‘bull’ tendency when other Jurors do not share the same opinions as him.This can be seen during the many times in the movie where he happens to have a conflict with Juror 8 over the difference in their view. This relationship of theirs is denoted by a zigzag line in the sociogram. His Type A personality clashes with majority of the Jurors as he uses

(0:14:32) "She's one of them too, isn't she?" (0:18:15) "It's these kids nowadays." (0:20:48) (juror # 3) J Cobb’s 16 year old son hit him on jaw and never came back . He (Cobb) is generalising this situation to every kid.Saying that kids nowadays can hit or kill anybody when they are angry. "They're all alike."

During the trial, Dill is distraught by the way Mr. Gilmer, the prosecutor, speaks to Tom. Dill does not think anyone has the business to talk that way and “that old Mr. Gilmer doin’ him thataway, talking so hateful to him,” (265) made him sick. Mr. Gilmer interrogates questions like “Are you being impudent to me, boy,” (264) and acts toward Tom as if he is an untamed animal being trained and not a full-grown adult. Although Tom Robinson is treated harshly, Jem believes Atticus, the defendant lawyer and their father, has won the case because of the strong evidences presented and the fact that Tom is innocent (279). When the jury pronounce Tom guilty, Jem is exasperated and “his hands were white from gripping the balcony rail, and his shoulder jerked as if each ‘guilty’ was a separate stab between them,” (282).

Juror Eight states, “It’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first” (Rose 231). Juror Eight feels that fairness is essential in a trial with the death penalty on the line. The conviction of a person doesn’t depend on where they come from. In the beginning of act two in Twelve Angry Men, a second vote amongst the jury members who voted guilty the first time takes place. Juror Nine votes not guilty because he admires Juror Eight for standing alone against the majority.

Look at the way everyones looking at me. They hate me. I 'm black, they won 't let me go.” Atticus said with the most softest voice he could have and said “don 't worry i got this.” Atticus was trying his best to show the judge that Tom was innocent with all the evidence he had, but most of the town is very racist. So it 's very hard to convince anyone in the jury to be convinced that Tom did not do it. Everyone questioned everything Atticus had to support Toms innocents.

Today and in the past, prejudice makes a man blind to the truth. The greatest instance of prejudice blinding the truth in To Kill a Mockingbird is the trial of Tom Robinson. In spite of Atticus proving without a doubt that Tom could not have raped Mayella Ewell the jury lets their own prejudices and preconceptions take precedence over the facts of the case. To the members of an extremely biased jury, Tom was guilty the moment he stepped onto Ewell property. The jury closed their minds to the truths of the case because the facts did not