The play ’12 Angry Men’ was written by Reginald Rose in 1954, exposing an all-white male jury as they deliberate the guilt of a defendant on the basis of ‘reasonable doubt.’ The play highlights how prejudice affects decision-making. An examination of jurors, socio-economic prejudice and legal prejudice establishes that prejudice definitely affects juror’s decision making. A brief overview of societal beliefs in 1950’s America will illustrate the prejudice as recognised in the play. The play is set in the 1950s when prejudice was evident in the American society. Reginald Rose explores how bigoted ideas often interfere with the judicial processes. In the 1950s, African Americans fought against the social systems and public authorities to receive …show more content…
the same rights as the “white people”. After the civil war (1861-1865), slavery ended and African Americans became citizens and were given the right to vote. However, there was so much prejudice that these new laws were often ignored and African Americans were still treated like second-class citizens. McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. It led to unfair prosecutions and people were deemed guilty by association. An evaluation of socio-economic prejudice will present how prejudice affects decision-making. Socio economic prejudice distinctly influenced decision-making, by several jurors.
In the trial the jurors were asked to only consider the evidence presented to them, however individual biases do affect the decision making process. Juror no. 10 displayed strong socio-economic prejudice as he burst into a rage while referring to people from the slums. “Look you know how those people lie…they don’t know what the truth is…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. Nobody’s blaming them. That’s how they are. You know what I men? Violent!” (Act 3, pg. 27) Jurors 3 and 10 chose a ‘guilty’ verdict initially based on various assumptions that were linked to their preconceived prejudices, especially discriminating against the boy from the start of the trial because of his poverty-stricken background and dysfunctional upbringing. Rose implies that due to background evidence and the point that the accused boy grew up on the “wrong side of the tracks,” (which they assume is a “breeding ground for criminals”) they automatically accuse the boy of murder, based on their socio-economic prejudice. An examination of legal prejudice will show how prejudice affects
decision-making. Clearly, legal prejudice affects decision-making. Many of the jurors in the play misunderstand their legal responsibilities; some simply do not understand the concept of “reasonable doubt” and others are unaware of the term “circumstantial evidence.” Rose characterises the 8th juror as a spokesperson for justice who is a constant reminder of the term “reasonable doubt” The fact that he cannot “send a boy off to die, without talking about it,” signals his determination and patience to scrutinise the evidence and ensure the boy receives a fair trial. The 8th juror exposes the inconsistencies and false assumptions associated with the circumstantial evidence. His questions plant doubt in the juror’s minds and they begin to think about their own assumptions and biases, and the likelihood of the boy’s guilt. Juror no. 8 proves beyond reasonable doubt that the old man assumed it was the boy as he re-enacts and times the old man’s rush from the bed to the front door, suggesting it would have taken a minimum of 42 seconds not 15 seconds. He also concludes that the old man manipulated the evidence because he sought attention. Manipulation of the facts, by eyewitnesses confirms the injustice, as it existed. The game of tic tac toe played by juror no.3 and no.12 reflects a negative and careless attitude towards their legal responsibilities. When juror no.12 decides to doodle the el-train and begin a game of tic tac toe it reveals he treats the trial like a game rather than a life or death situation. Juror 3 says “Your turn. We might as well pass the time.”(Act 2, pg13) Rose exposes the difficulties that surround the legal concept of reasonable doubt, and how prejudice often presents a barrier to justice. To conclude, it is obvious that socio-economic prejudice, legal prejudice and the jurors unquestionably affect decision-making. Rose explores the degree to which pre-conceived and often bigoted ideas interfere with the judicial processes. By highlighting personal prejudice bought to the jury room, Rose presents a reality-prejudice affects decision-making.
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.
The play, ‘Twelve Angry men’, written by Reginald Rose, explores the thrilling story of how twelve different orientated jurors express their perceptions towards a delinquent crime, allegedly committed by a black, sixteen-year-old. Throughout the duration of the play, we witness how the juror’s background ordeals and presumptuous assumptions influence the way they conceptualise the whole testimony itself.
Twelve Angry Men, is a play written by Reginald Rose. The play is about the process of individuals and a court case, which is determining the fate of a teenager. It presents the themes of justice, independence and ignorance. Rose emphasises these three themes through the characters and the dialogue. Justice is the principle of moral rightness or equity. This is shown through juror number eight who isn’t sure whether or not the boy is actually innocent or guilty, but he persists to ask questions and convinces the other jurors to think about the facts first. Independence is shown through both juror number three and ten. They both believe that the defendant is guilty until they both realise that they can not relate there past experiences with the court case. Ignorance is shown throughout all the jurors during the play, it is also brought out through the setting of the play.
Juror #3 is very biased against the 19-year-old boy that is being tried, and this affects all of his thoughts and actions regarding the case. He has this bias because his own son hit him in the jaw and ran away from home at the age of 15: “I’ve got a kid…when he was fifteen he hit me in the face…I haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids! You work your heart out [but it’s no use] (21).”According to this quote from the text, this juror condemns all teenagers and feels resentment towards them. He especially feels strongly about the boy being tried, because the boy grew up in the slums, and this juror is also biased against these people who grew up there. It is because of these feelings that he is strongly cemented in his vote of guilty.
In the 1930’s a plethora of prejudiced persons are present amidst the prominent Scottsboro trials, a seven-year-long case consisting of false rape allegations made against nine black boys from Scottsboro. When citizens fail to acknowledge their own preconceived ideas and look past the prejudice present in society, justice cannot be served. In the Scottsboro case, the court of Alabama disregards the societal issues surrounding racial discrimination and endorses the guilty verdict and conviction of the nine African American boys. Failing to look past their own personal biases, the jury ignores the unquestionable evidence that would support the boys’ case. Instead, the jury focuses on their predilection
... 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.
However, in Twelve Angry Men, Juror Eight defies prejudices in his own beliefs, and eventually in the final verdict. When the eleven jurors are asking the Eighth Juror why he voted “not guilty”, he responds with “It’s just that we’re talking about somebody’s life here. I mean, we can’t decide in five minutes. Suppose we’re wrong?” (12). Even if the Eighth Juror may think that the boy might have actually killed his father, doesn’t mean he did just because the boy grew up in the slums and is a tough kid. No matter where the boy is from or what he looks like, his life is on the line. Thus, don’t jump to conclusions too quickly. Later on, when the jurors are talking about the knife that the boy had, Juror Eight was “saying it’s possible that the boy lost the knife and that someone else stabbed his father with a similar knife.” (22). Just because a violent boy who grew up in a violent family had a knife, doesn’t necessarily mean he is guilty of murder. Thus, things may not always be the way they seem, so don’t judge a book by its
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
Since the 15th century, Lady Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold. The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of money, wealth, fame, power, or identity. But in the play “12 Angry Men” Written by Reginald Rose, and the film “Runaway Jury” directed by Gary Fleder, we see that justice is not always blind and can be manipulated in and outside of the jury and courtroom. In this essay I will discuss two similarities and one difference between this play and film.
In the play Twelve Angry Men, a boy is on trial for supposedly murdering his father after a night of arguing. Rodney King, twenty-five, was beaten by four caucasian Los Angeles Police Department officers on March 3, 1991 (CNN Wire 1). On this day, King was pulled over for exceeding the speed limit while intoxicated (Kaplan 1). The jury of both of these cases played a major role in the verdict of each case. In the play Twelve Angry Men, the twelve men that make up the jury are faced with a difficult decision to make; deciding whether or not a nineteen year old boy was guilty of murder. Fast forwarding forty-three years later, twelve jurors were given the Rodney King case in which they had to decide the fate of the four Los Angeles officers that brutally beat Rodney King, an African-American citizen. Being a member of the jury on the Rodney King case must have been a difficult task given the evidence surrounding the trial.
The term groupthink in this report is defined as, the social psychological phenomenon that results in groups during pressure situations. This social psychology theory is broken down into eight signs. Illusion of invulnerability, Collective rationalization, Belief in inherent morality, Stereotyped views of out-groups, Direct pressure on dissenters, Self-censorship, Illusion of unanimity, Self-appointed “mindguards”. According to research conducted by Irving Janis, there are three conditions to groupthink. The first, "high group cohesiveness" which is the direction for a group to be in unity while working towards a goal, or to satisfy the emotional needs of its members. Secondly, the structural faults such as insulation of the group, lack of norms and central leadership, in addition social background of group members. The third, situational context includes the circumstances of the groups meeting, social roles and expected behavior. This notion is exemplified during the movie, "12 Angry Men". The purpose of this essay is to examine the movie content to display the groupthink symptoms in place. Groupthink consists of eight major factors that occur during the film's scenes, as the twelve men debate a premeditated murder court case. All of the factors continue to rise as the jury discusses the young man's fate. During the film, a unanimous vote must be reached, despite this one man refuses to vote guilty. In 1957 the Orson Welles directed film opens as the judge explains the case and its severity. Soon after the group forms as the 12 men enter the jury discussion room. During these scene frames, the case evidence is explained. As the men talk they give details of an old man living beneath the boy testified, that he heard a fight, stat...
The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in a population. The juror that seemed interesting is Juror #8, who was played by Henry Fonda. Juror #8, or Davis, is an architect, the first dissenter and protagonist in the film. He was the first one to declare that the young man was innocent and he managed to convince the other jurors to see his point of view. Durkheim states that when we respond to deviance, it brings people together (Macionis, 2013, p. 159). We affirm the moral ties that bind us together, which was seen in the movie. At first, almost all of the jurors were so bent on convicting the young man based on their feelings, but they then started to analyze the facts and they came together to make their final decision.
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...
576). In 12 Angry Men, the jury that is voting is a death-qualified jury and all but one wants to convict. They are more prejudiced towards this Hispanic boy who could very well be innocent. In Young’s (2004) study, he proved that death-qualified juries were more likely to have prejudiced views of minorities that they are more willing to convict. In this study, he took a poll that resulted in the death-qualified juries saying that it is worse to let the guilty go free than to convict an innocent person. In both the film and Young’s (2004) study, it is shown that death-qualified juries are very quick to convict when they have someone’s life in their
Every person, through his or her experiences, will obtain bias simply because it’s a natural human reaction. What the jury trial system does, however, is help minimize bias. An example of this is Document F, an excerpt from Mark Twain’s “Roughing It” – a homicide has been committed, and lawyers are looking for people to be part of a jury to try a suspect. They lawyers ask everyone they interview if they have heard of the event, if they have read about the event, talked about the event, or formed any opinions on the event. If the prospective jurors answer yes to any of the questions, they are dismissed. Even though “Roughing It” is fiction, it is an excellent rendition of the quality of juror looked for in a jury for every trial. Another example of the fairness of jury trials is the Casey Anthony trial of 2008 (Document D). Here, Casey Anthony, whom many believed had committed the heinous crime of killing her own daughter, was acquitted of all charges. In this trial, the evidence was overwhelmingly against Anthony. However, it was also clearly inconclusive, and it was also clear that the prosecution had made assumptions in their case. This showed the grit of the jury as they saw through the assumptions and made the right decision. The last evidence of the fairness of the jury is the statistics regarding the rate of acquitted cases versus convicted cases (Document A). Here, the data shows that 12.15% of cases brought before