The Prejudices In Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men

The Prejudices of 12 Angry Men

Everyone has biases even in a place where there should never be bias like for say a courtroom with a human beings life on the line. In the play “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, 12 jurors argue about whether this kid killed his father or not, all of them say the boy is guilty except for one juror. This was a very interesting play the arguing, the suspense, the facts about the crime slowly unfolding and puzzle pieces coming together but what prompted the 11 of 12 men to insist without a doubt in their mind that the boy was guilty maybe it was the little facts and evidence given in the trial or maybe it was their own experiences and biases the lead them to that decision.

First, Juror#3 a strong, very forceful, extremely opinionated man within whom can be detected a streak of sadism. A humorless man who is intolerant of opinions other than his own and accustomed to forcing his wishes and views upon others. In my opinion Juror#3 was the most bias of all the jurors for 3 reasons: His own experiences with his father, his issues with his son, and his stubborn personality. Juror#3 seems to

hate the “new generation” in the play he explains to the rest of the jurors that back when he was growing up he had to call his father “sir”. The father of Juror#3 seemed be trying to raise him like a man in the same way Juror#3 also tried to raise his son like a man but it backfired, in Act 2 Juror#3 tells the tale of how when his son was younger he watched his son run from a fight Juror#3 was so ashamed so he taught his son how to fight when his son grew up they got in a fight and he was bigger his son his him in the face and Juror#3 hasnt seen his son for years. Juror#3 not only has a past but he also has a stubborn personality he gets facts mixed up and loses his temper easily there was a scene of the play where he gets angry at Juror#8 and tries to attack him and screams “i’ll kill em i’ll kill him.” in the end Juror#3 never changed his vote even will all the evidence proving the kid not guilty.
Secondly, Juror#10 is an angry, bitter man. A man who antagonizes almost at sight. A bigot who places no values on any human life save his own. A man who has been nowhere and is going nowhere and knows it deep within. Juror#10 seems like a rich snob that doesn’t understand what it’s like to live in a poor lower class society, 2 main points i would like to establish to back up why i think he’s a rich snob are he assumes all people from slums are criminals and he thinks that “those people” aren’t as intelligent. Juror#10 automatically assumed that the kid was guilty and he refused to give the benefit of the doubt. All kids from slums are criminals they fight and drink and are violent. Juror#10 is also a hypocrite in the play he uses the phase "He don't even speak good english"he is corrected and it makes him a little annoyed he thinks that he is better than everyone else and says that no one listens when he’s the one not listening.
Next, Juror#9 a mild, gentle old man,long since defeated by life and now merely waiting to die. A man who recognizes himself for what he is and mourns the days when it would have been possible to be courageous without shielding himself behind his many years because of his age he understands he’s wise he is more willing to believe that the old man’s testimony about seeing the defendant run out of the apartment building might not be true because he knows what it’s like to be nothing or a nobody all your life and just want some attention. Juror#9 seems to have different morals than the other jurors at first he believed that the boy was guilty but want made him change his mind was how Juror#8 was willing to stand against all of them knowing that he could be wrong and willing to change his vote if no one else would vote not guilty Juror#9 like the courage that it took so he changed his vote to not guilty.
Lastly, Juror#8 a quiet, thoughtful, gentleman.

A man who sees all sides of of every question and constantly seeks the truth. A man of strength tempered with compassion. Above all, a man who wants justice to be done and will fight to see that it is. Juror#8 has many different characteristics but they are all different from the other jurors they are more positive attributes rather than negative. Juror#8 is very open-minded, calm, and empathetic, he is the reason that poor kid wasn’t executed he looked into the case and question everything even if it wasn’t worth questioning. He tries to see all sides of the story the main cause of him wanting to help the kid was because he thought what would i want someone to do for me if i was in the kids shoes. When the jury room got a little loud and aggressive Juror#8 was able to calm and bring peace to the other

jurors.