Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Discrimination in 12 angry men
Discrimination in 12 angry men
Discrimination in 12 angry men
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Discrimination in 12 angry men
Everyone has different opinions when it come to the classes of society. Some of the lower class thinks badly of the upper class and some of the upper class thinks badly about the lower class. And there are some in different classes that respect people that aren’t in their class. Reginald Rose uses the theme of Reflection of American Society in 12 Angry Men to show what the higher class thought of the lower class. Juror Three is a man that will not be convinced that there could be some good in the lower class. Juror Seven just doesn’t care about the lower class. Juror Ten is a rude man that give the upper class a bad name. And Juror Eight is a man that thinks that every man deserves to have justice. Juror Three is a man that is completely stuck …show more content…
He is a man that only does things for his benefit. If he can use anyone or thing to help get him ahead he will. This man does not care about the trial, he only cares about his plans afterwards. Even though this is a trial with a boy who could possibly be sentenced to death, he still tries to rush everyone. And once everyone starts to vote “Not Guilty” he changes his vote because that way looks like he could leave quicker. All of this shows that he has absolutely no respect for the lower class. He may just not try to say anything about them because he just doesn’t care. But in this case, it’s better to make an argument than just agree with everyone else. Juror Seven is just a man in the upper class that only cares about himself and no one else. He is another great example of the upper class treating the lower class like …show more content…
The man is almost like Juror Seven but is almost worse. This can be seen at the very beginning of the play, he thinks that the boy was lucky to get a fair trial. He doesn’t think that the boy could afford it. And everytime he tries to make a point, he feels that he has to yell it so that the whole town can hear him. He even says in the play that he doesn’t want any part of the lower class. He even goes as far as to call the boy an “ignorant slob”. This shows that he wants to judge the boy before he even gets to know him. Every time that this man is wrong he always has to comeback with rude comment or a mean glare. This man clearly has no respect for people that are under him in
This essay will compare and contrast the protagonist/antagonist's relationship with each other and the other jurors in the play and in the movie versions of Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men. There aren't any changes made to the key part of the story, but yet the minor changes made in making the movie adaptation produce a different picture than what one imagines when reading the drama in the form of a play. First off, the settings in the movie are a great deal more fleshed out. In the play, the scene begins with the jurors regarding the judge's final statements concerning the case in the courtroom and then walking out into the jury room. In the movie, the audience is placed in the role of the invisible casual observer, who for perhaps the first 5 minutes of the movie, walks throughout the court building passing other court rooms, lawyers, defendants, security officers, elevators, etc.
Juror number eight is the main protagonist, he also a reserved with his thoughts, yet very strategic with them. He is the defender of the down trodden victim. He has a calm rational approach to everything and he reveals the gaps in the testimonies placed against the defendant. These examples would be; that the old man couldn’t have seen the boy run out of the house, as the old man had a limp and therefore could not make it to the door in time. The old lady across the road could have never saw the boy stab his father, due to she wasn’t wearing her glasses and it was pitch black. Number eight is a man that s...
Juror Five came from the bottom and knows what it’s like. No matter how hard he tried he will always know the feeling of being on the bottom. and at some point he will always be reminded “I used to play in a backyard full of garbage, maybe it still smells on me”(7). Juror Five knows who he is and what he stands for. Now, how he would vote on the Rodney King case I can honestly say that, I don't really know.
Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three
Juror #10, a garage owner, segregates and divides the world stereotypically into ‘us’ and ‘them.’ ‘Us’ being people living around the rich or middle-class areas, and ‘them’ being people of a different race, or possessing a contrasting skin color, born and raised in the slums (poorer parts of town). It is because of this that he has a bias against the young man on trial, for the young man was born in the slums and was victim to domestic violence since the age of 5. Also, the boy is of a Hispanic descent and is of a different race than this juror, making him fall under the juror’s discriminatory description of a criminal. This is proven on when juror #10 rants: “They don’t need any real big reason to kill someone, either. You know, they get drunk, and bang, someone’s lying in the gutter… most of them, it’s like they have no feelings (59).
Juror seven is a very average juror member that would like to be anywhere else but the room he is in at the moment. First, there is an ombre affect going on in the center of the shape because it is representing the character’s attitude throughout the movie. At the beginning of the movie, Juror seven made it extremely clear that he had better things
... I've lived among them all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that. I mean, they're born liars.” In this statement you can clearly tell his prejudice against the kid, just because of where he was raised. Juror # 10 and juror # 3 has prejudice against the kid. Juror # 3 has personal experience with a kid like the accused. “Reminded of his own family's personal crisis, Juror # 3 tells the jurors of his own disrespectful, teen aged boy who hit him on the jaw when he was 16. Now 22 years old, the boy hasn't been seen for two years, and the juror is embittered: "Kids! Ya work your heart out."” This is a direct example of juror # 3’s prejudice against the accused. When prejudice was in effect in the movie, it clouded the judgments of the jurors that were prejudice against the boy just because he was raised in the slums.
The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “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.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground
... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.
These two jurors are almost the plain opposite of each other. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant man accustomed of forcing his wishes and views upon others. On the other hand, Juror 8 is an honest man who keeps an open mind for both evidence and reasonable doubt. Since these two people are indeed very different, they both have singular thoughts relating to the murder case. Juror 8 is a man who is loyal to justice. In the beginning of the play, he was the only one to vote ‘not guilty’ the first time the twelve men called a vote. Although his personality is reflected on being a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man, he is still a very persistent person who will fight for justice to be done. Juror 8 is a convincing man who presents his arguments well, but can also be seen as manipulative. An example would be when he kept provoking Juror 3 until he finally said “I’m going to kill you" to Juror 8. He did this because he wanted to prove that saying "I’ll kill you" doesn’t necessarily mean that Juror 3 was actually going to kill him. Juror 3 is a totally different character. He is a stubborn man who can be detected with a streak of sad...
Juror ten is perceived throughout the play as a nuisance. The reason he causes a plethora of conflict is that of his prejudiced views on the
Twelve Angry Men brings up a few issues the criminal justice system has. The jury selection is where issue number one arises. “A jury of one’s peer’s acts as an important check in cases where a defendant fears that the local justice system may have a prejudice against him, or in corruption cases in which the judiciary itself may be implicated” (Ryan). Deciding one 's future or even fate, in this case, is no easy task, as depicted by the 8th juror.
This is case, Juror #6 is overlooked by most of the men–he is dirty, not saying a word, and just a truck driver. Over half of the men do not think he is relevant. This changes the entire feel of the room–at least for Juror #6. Chills run up and down his spine because he is in a room full of white men–white men who seem to think they are better than him.
Their relationship also connects with the problem of prejudice in the context of seeking out justice. Interestingly, Juror 3 has little interest initially in Juror 10's suggestion of a hung jury because it does not appeal to his desire for vengeance against his own son. His personal prejudice runs so deep that eventually he would rather another jury get a fresh attempt to provide a guilty verdict. In this way, Juror 3 acknowledges that Juror 8's perspective is unusual. But it so enrages him that he does desire to kill and for a moment at the end of Act 1, Juror 3's anger against teenage boys transfers to Juror 8 threatening (ironically) to "kill
In another scene, he is about to make his point when he is interrupted by juror three. This further strengthens the point that he is a timid character. Another thing that is shown in our script is how juror five lived in the slums. This is represented by the quote,”That’s possible, growing up, I’ve heard about many people close to me be wrongly accused.” This quote shows us that five grew up in the slums and he relates with the poor which is also presented in “Twelve Angry