Prejudice In Twelve 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.

One of the central characters in the movie is that of the Jury Foreman, played by Martin Balsam. His role is vital because he is responsible for guiding the whole discussion among the rest of the jurors and organizing an efficient system to ensure everyone’s point of view is taken into account. He comes across as authoritative on multiple occasions when he tries to silence any brewing arguments. He likes his position of power. As a juror he doesn’t contribute much until the very end.

Juror number 3 is a very angry man who wants for the boy in question to be guilty. He wants nothing more than for him to go to jail. Juror number 3 doesn't stick to the facts he made the case more personal then it should have been. He stuck to one piece of evidence and then went on that piece until everyone agreed with him. He brought up a few times how his childhood was bad and brought a picture to show everyone and guilt trip them.

Even if they all didn’t agree on certain things, they were all able to have some contribution on coming together to decide that the boy is not guilty. This story is a great example of how completely different people can work together to eventually decide on something no matter how big are small

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 play clearly shows a great representation of the problems in the modern day court system. These complications include biased jurors, ignorant and careless jurors, and lazy court-appointed lawyers. A major problem in the court system is, biased and close minded jurors can often slip through the interview process before the court case. In Twelve Angry Men, Juror Four makes a point that offends Juror Five and shows how judgmentally he thinks; “The children who come out of slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society” (Rose 318).

A group of juror comprising of 12 men from diverse backgrounds began their early deliberations with 11 of ‘guilty’ and 1 of ‘not guilty’ verdicts. Juror 8 portrayed himself as a charismatic and high self-confident architect. Initially, Juror 1 who played the foreman positioned himself as self-appointed leader of the team in which has led his authority to be challenged as his leadership style lacked in drive and weak. In the contrary, Juror 8 is seen as the emergent leader considering his openness to probing conversations while remaining calm. Implying this openness to the present, it has become crucial that a good decision relies on knowledge, experience, thorough analysis and most importantly critical thinking.

The second juror who contradicted himself was juror number three. He was explaining to juror number eight that the defendant did not say the phrase “I’ll kill you” for no reason if he did not mean it (Rose 336). Shortly after this happened he spoke up to juror eight after two of the other jurors had him held back and hollered “Let me go! I’ll kill him. I’ll kill him!”

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. This happened while the vote was nine to three, nine voted innocent and three voted guilty. Three and four turned their backs towards number ten because they disagreed on why they thought the boy was guilty. Juror number ten was an ill-mannered man who was very bigot.

Early on he drops small and subtle remarks that indicates he’s bias. These alone don’t amount to much, but as the film progresses and as he becomes more emotional, his remarks begin to escalate. Until the end of the film when he outs himself for what he truly is. This elicits disgust from the other jurors, most notably from juror number 4 who also firmly votes guilty. Juror number 4 is the one who is able to remain the most level-headed and emotionless throughout the trial.

For their whole lives, people of a higher level of influence have told them what to do and when. But with BlueServo and websites like it, now it was their turn to influence other people’s lives. As with any bad habit, it soon becomes not enough, people felt the need to not only capture the criminals but administer their own idea of justice. A member of the Minuteman, an organized union of these surveillance addicted individuals, believed it was his turn to enact his version of justice. Unfortunately, one of the side effects of viewership is a complete misunderstanding of reality and this lead to the murder of two innocent Hispanic people.

Elizabeth, this innocent lie will be temporary. We are all too focused on the present. Nobody has thought of the future. The lie may taint John now but the truth will come out. I know it will and when it does, John will be pure once again as he was before the witch trial started.

Every American citizen should serve on a jury because it allows new ideas into the verdict and it is fair to all Americans. In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, Juror 11 says, “I have always thought a man was entitled to have unpopular opinion in this country. This is the reason why I came here. I wanted the right to disagree” (28). To allow all American citizens to serve on a jury, it would allow different views and ideas from other countries to be heard.

“When injustice becomes a law, resistance becomes a duty” told by Thomas Jefferson. Sadly, since the judicial system of America was established there has been a lack of fairness, through which it has become unavoidable. This has resulted in some of the citizens themselves to confront it by fighting back trying to establishing justice. In Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose emphasis the theme of “Injustice” through his characterization of eleven out of the twelve jurors, the extensive use of verbal irony to convey their ignorance, and sarcastic attitude the author has towards the play. Reginald Rose utilizes characterization to thoroughly depict each of the twelve jurors.

On March 25, Alabama police arrested nine black men who were charged with raping two white women. Their names were Olen Montgomery, Clarence Norris, Haywood Patterson, Ozie Powell, Willie Roberson, Charlie Weems, Eugene Williams, and Andrew Wright. All nine of these men are said to have raped two women on a train going through Jackson County in northeastern Alabama. During their trial, they got the name the, “Scottsboro boys”. The men all denied ever seeing the two women on the train, but an all-white jury found them guilty and eight of the nine boys were sentenced to death.