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.
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). Juror Five takes offense to this because he was successful and born in the slums, and carries on to fight to break the stereotype in the
For example, the jury in Tom Robinson’s trial deems Robinson to be guilty even though he is innocent. This decision is influenced by society’s racial ignorance. Dolphus Raymond also makes the important decision to pretend that he is a drunk because of society’s racist beliefs. Finally, Bob Ewell decides to attack Scout and Jem because he is ignorant to the fact that blacks and whites are equal. The racial ignorance seen in To Kill A Mockingbird is similar to the racial ignorance seen today.
Ellison uses Invisible man to highlight the racism and Prejudice within society; despite the narrator’s lack of reliability, these themes are still conveyed effectively. Not only does our narrator detail the differences between black and white people, but also northern and southern people so that even the southern white man could read this book and relate to the feeling. All of his delusions, and outbursts add to the societal situation that Ellison wanted depicted in his work. The subtle racism that threatens to be brushed aside is deafening as I.M. rages on about Tobbit defending himself by being “...married to a fine, intelligent Negro girl” (468).
All through the movie juror three was stubborn and his temper was put to the test when asked “Are you his executioner,” he responded with “I am one of them” (12 Angry Men). As seen in Figure 1 juror three and juror 7 are placed on the left side and they are placed closer together. They are placed closer together because they were the most willful of the
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
It is not known if the boy is actually guilty or innocent, it will always remain hidden with the boy. It is about whether the jury has a reasonable doubt about his guilt, and this is how the whole debate started when the jury eight had a reasonable doubt about the whole incident of the boy killing his father and the witnesses. Juror eight who entered in the trial with an open mind finally managed to convince the others to do so. The movie illustrates that everything is not what it appears to be. The movie also reflects the prevailing sexism of America in the 1950’s.
“That if you don’t speak English, you’re undocumented.“14. “That we are drunks, illegals, only good for cleaning, womanizers, uneducated, gang affiliated who have not contributed to this society.“15. “That Latinos are lazy, dumb, deadbeat dads, illegal immigrants, school drop-outs, gang members, drug dealers, rapists … That Latinos will turn America into a third world country.“16. “That we all speak ‘Mexican.”. Being “uneducated,speaking Mexican,Illegal Immigrants” are the basic negative stereotypes that describe the Hispanic/Latino community.According to the author, many men are sick and tired of hearing this all of the time and want something to end it.
I would have got it hard from him if you…”, Boesman also punish Lena for his mistakes because he has power over her. The was a time when Boesman accused Lena for breaking three of the bottles and it was him who broke the bottles. Boesman also expresses racial discrimination because his colored he sees himself better than Outa the old man who is black and African. Boesman chase away Outa.Pg32” Hey! Hamba wena!” treating him the way white people have treated him.