Prejudice: There are many significant views and values that Reginald Rose demonstrates in 12 Angry Men the most important one being that prejudice constantly affects the truth and peoples judgement. As the jurors argue between themselves as to whether a young boy is guilty of stabbing his father it is shown that “It’s very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this.” This is most evident in the way juror #3 and juror #10 come to their decision that the young man is guilty as they bring in there prejudice against young people and people from the slums to make their judgement without considering the facts of the case. Rose uses juror #8 who can see the whole trial because he is calm, reasonable and brings no prejudice as a prime example of what a juror is supposed to be like.…
At first Mr. Davis’ bases his vote more so for the sake of discussion after all, the jurors must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. As the deliberations unfold, the story quickly becomes a study of the jurors’ complex personalities (ranging from wise, bright and empathetic to arrogant, prejudiced and merciless), preconceptions, backgrounds and interactions. That provides the backdrop to Mr. Davis’ attempts in convincing the other jurors that a “not guilty” verdict might be appropriate.…
Juror 10 is one of the most racist and prejudice of the all the jurors a quote to show this is “Now you’re not going to tell us that we’re supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say. I mean, they’re born liars.” When he says this he means/believes that people are born in slums are born to live lives of crime and disseat, even thou juror 5 was born and lived in a slum all his life…
5. Juror #8 was able to convince the other 11 jurors simply because he presented good, valid arguments. He also knew how to separate the fact and fiction from the given facts.…
His emotional prejudice gets in the way of his critically thinking through the evidence because he has emotional conflict with his own son. He is grouping all teens together because of his altercation with his son, and Juror 3 is just punishing the young man on trial because he cannot come to turns with his own failings as a parent with his child. Towards the end of the play Juror 3 is all alone on the vote count; he “looks around at all of them for a long time. They sit silently, waiting for him to speak, and all of them despise him for his stubbornness. Then, suddenly, his face contorts as if he is about to cry, and he slams his fist down on the table” … (thundering) All right” (30).…
Juror 10 is clearly motivated by his prejudice. He uses his intolerance to determine his vote for the accused defendant. For instance, in the beginning of Act I, Juror 10 haphazardly said, “ Look at the kind of people they are, you know them,” (13) without even digging deep into the case. It is quite obvious that Juror 10 is generating an “opinion” of the defendant based on the color of his skin and his background. He does not refer to them as regular people, but as “they” and “them” on certain pages. In the courtroom though, no juror is to have any judgments, they are supposed to bring the facts to the table, not their opinions. Juror 10’s outlook of the defendant is blinding him from thinking of any reasonable doubt. Further more, when Juror 10 said, “…I lived among em’ all my life, you can’t believe a word they say. You know that,” he yet again was referring to the defendant’s people as “em” and “they”. You can clearly infer that while Juror 10 was living amongst them, he must have experienced or witnessed situations which has caused him to have judgments on these specific people. These same judgments he brings to the courtroom just add difficulty into solving the case. Following Juror 10’s views further, when Juror 5 was explaining how the person who did stab the father was…
Juror 12 keeps to himself and seems distracted and not interested. He plays noughts and crosses and draws sketches of his advertisements. Cannot articulate his reasoning and changes his vote on multiple occasions…
Juror #3 came into this trial with a moral dilemma long before hearing the facts of the case. Given his past experiences, he would feel more inclined to vote guilty as to punish and make an example of this boy so that other kids would think twice. In this case if the jury decided on a guilty verdict, the defendant would be put to death. People might make rash decisions based…
The generalisations established by certain Jurors, makes them oblivious to the facts before them. Characters rely on generalised stereotypes to support their prejudices against those of a lower-socio economic status. The 10th Juror says to other Jurors ‘the kids who crawl outta those places are real trash’ and the 4th Juror states ‘Children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society.’ Neither the 10th nor the 4th Jurors makes reference to specific details of the defendant’s situation, but…
Every American that has registered to vote or has a drivers license can at any time be called to serve on a jury. There are mixed feelings about being called for duty. Some Americans see it as a nuisance that will disrupt their lives. Others see it as an opportunity to serve their country. Being called to serve, and actually serving is two different matters. A jury is ultimately selected by the judge, prosecutor and defending attorney. How they are they picked? How are they released? Maybe this paper will answer a few of these questions.…
each juror has there own deficiencies or less than ideal qualities, these emerge through their interactions with eachother or their attitudes towards their trial. juror 10 is predjudice regularly using stereotypes to condemn the defendsant without actually considering if what he is saying is true. such as ‘a very big drinker’ or a born liar’ the third juror is guilty of stereotyping the defendant based on age, and he defends his opinions and stereotypes violently in the jury room, such as his near attack on 8th juror at the end of the first act. the play does not let a single character escape unflawed. even 8th juror,…
The 3rd juror is the most outspoken about the 'guilt' of the teenager. As the play goes along it is revealed he has a personal connection with what has happened, he feels anger towards his own son, an anger which he has transferred onto the accused. A key moment for the third juror is when he finally changes his vote to ‘not guilty’ which is when he is reminded by the 8th juror “It’s not your boy. He’s somebody else’”, followed by the 4th juror stating “let him live”. Right up to this point, the third juror was committed to his ‘guilty’ vote. By juror 3 allowing his emotional baggage to enter the jury room with him it is clear that from the beginning of the play, his personal experience with his son were physiologically too powerful for him to be able to make the right verdict for the defendant.…
Juror 10 is one of the most racist and prejudice of the all the jurors a quote to show this is “Now you’re not going to tell us that we’re supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say. I mean, they’re born liars.” When he says this he means/believes that people are born in slums are born to live lives of crime and disseat, even thou juror 5 was born and lived in a slum all his life he is a perfectly respectably man. This proves that juror 10 was wrong and people born in slums aren’t born to lie and commit crime. There for prejudice did obscure the truth for juror 10.…
I personally think that Jury number 9 does not fully fulfil the standards of thinking. Based from the readings the standards of thinking “Whenever we think there is always a purpose, within a point of view, based on assumptions, leading to implications and consequences. We use data, facts, and experiences to make inferences and judgments, based on concepts and theories to answer a question or solve a problem.” Juror number 9 obviously did not fulfil these standards. One thing that I noticed about this juror is that when he decided to change sides he only did this for the sake of giving Henry Fonda a breather. He only did this because he thinks that the men inside the room are being too harsh on the boy and o Henry Fonda. This old man did not have a specific purpose towards the case. It would be acceptable that if he changed sides because he doubted the case but he didn’t.…
Throughout the play from the starting juror 8 is the only one who votes ‘not guilty’ as he says, ‘It’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.’ This clearly tells us that he had gone through all the evidences and found them to be lacking whereas all the other eleven jurors had assumed that this was an ‘open and shut case’ without thinking of any other chances. This is obvious when he says towards the end of the play, ‘….we have a reasonable doubt, and this is a safeguard which has enormous value in our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it’s sure.’ These words of juror 8 have a tremendous influence on the other jurors to vote unanimously ‘not guilty’ in favour of the boy.…