Discrimination Exposed In Twelve Angry Men, By Reginald Rose

Twelve Angry Men, by Emmy Award winning author Reginald Rose, is a play set in the 19th century, were twelve opinionated and impatient jurors are forced to decide whether a nineteen year old boy is guilty of murdering his father. These men must get over various obstacles that block them from the truth. In writing this play, Mr. Reginald Rose gives us a clear message- we must never be blinded by personal prejudice or racial bias. Jurors Eight, Three, and Ten can fully prove that.
Juror Eight was to first to fully overcome any bias and really look at the entire case with perspective. While all the other jurors voted guilty purely because the boy was raised in a slum and was Puerto Rican, Juror Eight was determined to work out the entire truth. He was willing to go against eleven other men, who were not only grumpy but quite violent, to look at the facts and compare them with other evidence. “It’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first (Pg 315),” says Juror Eight when asked why he voted not

guilty. He doesn’t let the defendant’s nationality or reputation influence his own, objective decision.
Juror Three was the complete opposite of Juror Eight; he let both personal prejudice and racial bias obstruct the truth.

When Juror Three’s son ran away, he thought that he himself wasn't to blame; rather, it was his own son’s fault. He believes, from personal experience, that children take their parents for granted and that they are not to be trusted under any circumstances. Juror Three also holds strongly a belief that people who are Puerto Rican or another similar race are fit to be ruthless and cold-blooded killers. “You come in here with your heart bleeding all over the floor about slum kids and injustice… and you've got some soft- hearted old ladies listening to you… This kid is guilty! He’s got to burn!” Juror Three exclaims when some of the other jurors start to show a reasonable doubt regarding who murdered the defendant’s father. Juror Three was a man who could never see the truth clearly because of his own

problems.
Last, Juror Ten was a character who was so racially biased that it became offensive even to the other jurors. During his monologue to the other jurors, he says, “...they get drunk, and bang, someone’s lying in the gutter. That’s how they are!... Violent!... They’re no good. Take it from me.” Juror Ten is clearly implying that people who are raised in the slum are criminals and should not be trusted. This is a rude and accusing statement that insults the boy’s innocence and the Jurors themselves. Juror Ten knows no limit as to when he must reign in his own racial bias when making important, life-changing decisions.
In writing the play “Twelve Angry Men”, author Reginald Rose conveys many life lessons and values, one of the most implied telling the readers to see past ethnic bias or the preconceived notions in order to fully uncover hidden truths. Most of the Jurors start by believing that the boy was guilty because he was raised in a slum or was Puerto Rican. None of the Jurors thought to confirm any of the witness’s testaments or the boy’s alibi, except for Juror Eight. Each Juror showed a strong opinion about the boy’s ethnicity, which could’ve led to false capital punishment. If prejudice and bias were non existent the world would be a much better place where justice is served to those who deserve it.